IE 7.0 Beta 2 Available to the Public

Once again... by Kesch · 2006-01-31 07:19 · Score: 2, Funny

I will repeat my earlier sentiment. Windows update with tabs and RSS, yipee!

Once again I will return to browsing the internet with Firefox.

--
If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.

Re:Once again... by CastrTroy · 2006-01-31 07:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

Microsoft cannot survive developing new features at its current pace. 5 years between releases for SQL server and and 3 years for most other applications is too much. We haven't had a new IE since 2001. Meanwhile, new versions of the competing open source solutions are being released every year, sometimes more often, with tons of new features. At this rate, in 10 years, MS software will have a quarter of the features of the competing open source products.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:Once again... by bersl2 · 2006-01-31 07:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's not the number of features that's important; it's whether you implement the important ones well.
Re:Once again... by bersl2 · 2006-01-31 07:37 · Score: 1, Funny

-1, No Shit

I need sleep.
Re:Once again... by digitaldc · 2006-01-31 07:40 · Score: 1

From the Channel 9 comments section:
i threw firefox right out ! didn't even watch the video before

edit: i 'd love to be in that office..... i mean... the view is really beautiful. that's my idea of a dream office (if there's such a thing)

He threw firefox right out? I guess one man's trash is another man's treasure.

--
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Re:Once again... by AlvySinger · 2006-01-31 07:41 · Score: 1

And if they released new versions every year they'd be damned for perpetuating a constant upgrade path.
Re:Once again... by robgamble · 2006-01-31 07:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

They didn't need a new IE until Firefox started creating bona fide competition.

--
No sig for you!
Re:Once again... by BruceCage · 2006-01-31 07:49 · Score: 1

I took a quick look and from what I can tell, nobody that's using Firefox will even be tempted to switch. Organizing your bookmarks pretty much hasn't even changed, it actually seems to be quite buggy here (if I try and move a link it doesn't even move there), especially compared to the powerful manager that comes with Firefox.

Other that then, it annoys me that I can't even seem to move the "classic toolbar" (files, edit etc...) to it's original position, you know..... where it actually belongs.

I do like the feature which gets you an overview of all open tabs.

Summary, when compared to Firefox: ain't the same fuckin' ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same fuckin' sport.

--
Perfect is the enemy of done.
Re:Once again... by Mike+Savior · 2006-01-31 07:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Noone spits on Apple for doing it. Not trying to flame, trying to make a point.

--
space is pretty cool.
Re:Once again... by OneSeventeen · 2006-01-31 08:01 · Score: 1

I don't think anybody will be switching back to IE7 from Firefox, the problem will be getting IE7 users to switch to Firefox.

--
"Now the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed." -C.S. Lewis
Re:Once again... by cristij · 2006-01-31 08:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't mean to defend MS, but I don't think the differentiators are the frequency of the releases, or the additional features.

If a product is well designed and build you don't need frequent releases. In regards to features, most people don't want to do many things with a browser except view web pages, and it a browser does that good and creates a pleasant experience users don't care about features they wouldn't use anyway.

Take the example of the iPod: there are plenty of players out there with a ton more features and available for a lower price. But none of them come even close in market share. Features don't win the hearts of consumers.
Re:Once again... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-31 08:08 · Score: 1, Insightful

it's not the number of features that's important; it's whether you implement the important ones well.

And therefore Microsoft can do nither?

Ie has been a bastard from day one. CSS in IE is horrible. It's security is horrible, It's scripting (Active X) is a nightmare to the point that most of the web community has completely abandonded it. The only thing it has going for it is a large number of Corperate sites that were written by MS certified people that wrote them specific for IE and refusedto test for any other browser. And the number of them are dropping fast as these sites are forced to write to standards for compatability.

And dont get me started on the rest of their products. Nobody is perfect, but they miss the ball on such a regular basis it almost looks intentional. They rely on their overwhelming monopoly and it is really showing now. You ask 10 regular users about microsfot windows, IE and office and 8 of them will have nothing nice to say.

They keep using it because they think there is no other choice.

Microsoft cant impliment anything well. That is a proven track record.
Re:Once again... by Firewheels · 2006-01-31 08:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

And given this, it may be interesting to note that just about all other major browsers render compliant to standards, despite having frequent release schedules.

Can MS say the same?
Re:Once again... by Kesch · 2006-01-31 08:18 · Score: 1

Take the example of the iPod: there are plenty of players out there with a ton more features and available for a lower price. But none of them come even close in market share. Features don't win the hearts of consumers.

Nope, looks like it takes a massive advertising budget and the ability to turn your product into a social fad.

Ok, I was a little unfair to the iPoo.. er... Pod. They do have a nice interface-scroll-wheely-thingy and the iTunes integration is a boon for The Average Consumer(TM).

--
If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
Re:Once again... by Kesch · 2006-01-31 08:32 · Score: 1

You're one of those Opera users my Mozzy warned me about. You try to trick me into following you with a better browser and candy. I'M NOT FALLING FOR IT!

By the way, I like scooters. They are easy to park and have good gas mileage.

--
If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
Re:Once again... by rbarreira · 2006-01-31 08:32 · Score: 1

Yeah, but they seem to implement the important features quickly - just think about complete Wireless support on the OS level, for example.

--

The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Re:Once again... by CastrTroy · 2006-01-31 08:55 · Score: 1

They still at IE 6 don't have proper CSS support or PNG support. They don't implement all the important features quickly enough. I can get a Javascript debugger for FireFox. I want the same for IE. For any developer doing a lot of javascript in their web pages, the javascript debugger is a must have.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:Once again... by Bogtha · 2006-01-31 09:03 · Score: 1

just about all other major browsers render compliant to standards

Which ones? All other browsers have shortcomings in their support for HTML 4.01, CSS 2.1, HTTP 1.1 and DOM 2, and I'd consider those to be the most important specifications as far as web browsers go.

--
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Re:Once again... by sbrown123 · 2006-01-31 10:13 · Score: 1

most people don't want to do many things with a browser except view web pages

I don't know about that. I've been watching lots of people, who are not generally regarded as the computer savvy type, installing Firefox extensions. And the extensions they load are rarely the same as what the next guy/girl loads. This may be because the "web browser" has become the principle application that people utilize when they use a computer. Simply being able to view web pages doesn't seem to cut it for them anymore.
Re:Once again... by netsharc · 2006-01-31 10:48 · Score: 1

The overview of all tabs on Firefox is offered by foXpose (works only on FFox 1.5 though). I wonder which came first, foXpose or IE7 previews.

Most of the IE7 features seems to be copies of what Firefox has done, it's pretty pathetic of Microsoft to tout these as new.

--
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
Re:Once again... by chowsapal · 2006-01-31 11:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

Are there any extra features? Their handling of RSS is more user friendly (when you click into an XML page), but I don't see live bookmarks. There are still no mouse gestures, ctl-L still pops up a window, no AdBlock... It's like catching up with an ex-girlfriend who's finally learned to play video games, then finding out she's gained 200 pounds and a beard. You can keep her.
Re:Once again... by warpwiz · 2006-01-31 11:43 · Score: 1

Yep - I clicked on the link to the M$ page. I sat and stared at it, contemplating a download. Then I thought, WHY??? When I couldn't think of a reason, I closed the link. Go Firefox! warpwiz
Re:Once again... by graywolf001 · 2006-01-31 12:59 · Score: 1

A script debugger has been available for IE for years. Ever since IE4 as far as I remember.
To get to it, Google for "script debugger" and click "I'm Feeling Lucky"

Not sure how you missed it.
Re:Once again... by angulion · 2006-01-31 13:21 · Score: 1

If a product is well designed and build you don't need frequent releases. In regards to features, most people don't want to do many things with a browser except view web pages, and it a browser does that good and creates a pleasant experience users don't care about features they wouldn't use anyway.

True, but the analogy when it comes to IE is more of a "mp3-player" that doesn't support other formats than WAV.
Unfortunatly the enduser doesn't see this lack, but the developers more so. A better browser would eventually translate to a better user experience (devs. need to go by lowest common denominator often, which is IE).
Re:Once again... by rapidweather · 2006-01-31 13:33 · Score: 1

Right now, I am using Opera 8.51, with 11 RSS feeds built in. I say "built in", as this is on a knoppix remaster livecd linux.
Opera has some real advantages over Firefox in the handling of RSS feeds. When you click on one of the RSS sites, Opera opens it's mail system page, and there is a list of the various stories. Slashdot RSS has 10 all the time. You get 5 lines of preview text on this story, about IE 7, and a link here, to the story on Slashdot. Firefox only gives you the title of the story, and once you click on it, you go right to the story in the main browser window. I note that even on dial up, Opera has all this available within a minute after your dial up connection is ready, longer if you dive right in to a heavy page like "usatoday.com", which will use bandwidth. Once the RSS feeds decide to arrive (about 1 minute), there will be a short pause if you are typing something (like this), and then you will be greeted by the Opera Mail popup notice, at the bottom right of the screen, with the site of each feed, and the number of messages incoming. This will occur later, as more stories are made available, so you stay right on top of the news as it gets published, rather than when you decide to visit a news site, and look around. I just received 2 google news stories right then. The google news RSS summary of a story is quite comprehensive, with several links, in addition to the multi-line summary. I wonder how IE 7 will measure up to Opera.
With a livecd linux, unless I decide to save the stories, it starts out new with each bootup, with a fresh batch of stories, if the site has made them. CNET has 22 stories, and interestingly enough, some on Googles new OS, a linux distro!
Gotta go read about that!

--
Rapidweather's Linux Screenshots.
Re:Once again... by tezbobobo · 2006-01-31 14:24 · Score: 1

That's just stupid. If IE started doing everything it is already doing really well, it would still be crap. Why? No RSS, extensions, and etcetera. It is more a sliding scale where "Doing your shit really well" is on one axis, and "Heaps of features" is on the other.
Re:Once again... by johncadengo · 2006-01-31 15:11 · Score: 1

Since when was rate, as far as developing technologies are concerned, linear? Even with Microsoft, there is a such thing as acceleration...

--
My page.
Re:Once again... by vwjeff · 2006-01-31 15:44 · Score: 1

Microsoft cannot survive developing new features at its current pace. 5 years between releases for SQL server and and 3 years for most other applications is too much. I would argue that part of the reason Microsoft keeps their marketshare fairly consistent is because of long release cycles. I know in the past Microsoft released an OS just because (Win ME) but I think they realized that most customers will never upgrade their computer after they buy it. Since the vast majority of PCs come with Windows, why would they want to shake the market up with yearly OS releases? Instead, they focus on keeping their OEM partners happy. A large number of Linux distros are the complete opposite. Releasing a new or updated OS every 6 months to a year will equal less acceptance in the corporate desktop market. The software may be free but supporting constant upgrades is not. Constant upgrades are ok for the enthusiast (myself) but I manage 500 workstations at work. Basically, we never plan on upgrading the OS when we buy a new computer. We generally keep workstations for 3-5 years and upgrading the OS even every other year would be a tough sell for the boss. Just keeping the Windows systems patched and up to date is enough work! I personally am a Debian user because I respect their release model. Even though I only have two Linux boxes at home, I don't want to have to constantly maintain them. All jokes aside, I use Debian because I want my software to be rock solid. Stability is far more important to me than performance. I'm not trying to start a flamewar. I have used many other distros out there but it always seemed like my system was a release behind the current version.
Re:Once again... by rfernand79 · 2006-01-31 16:57 · Score: 1

Does it run on Linux? Does it play Ogg?
Re:Once again... by jp10558 · 2006-01-31 17:04 · Score: 1

As I understand it, IE7 has RSS, and IE pioneered the extension concept, and is going to expand on its history with IE7. MS just calls Extensions Browser Helper Objects.

--
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
Re:Once again... by jp10558 · 2006-01-31 17:06 · Score: 1

Only if they started charging for them, or stopped allowing them to work with older versions of windows. Oh, wait they already do. But even though Opera and FF can work on Win95 through XPSP2 (and other OSs, with yearly updates...) IE7 can only work partially on WinXPSP2 and fully on Vista. Why? No technical reason I've seen yet.

Anyway, if they kept working on XPSP2 for at least another 3 years, I don't think anyone would complain much (more than they already do) about and upgrade treadmill.

--
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
Re:Once again... by jp10558 · 2006-01-31 17:09 · Score: 1

Why do you feel compelled to upgrade your linux distro? Aren't most patches backported? Aren't there distros like RHEL and SUSE Enterprise and Debian Stable designed to be both stable and upgraded about once every 5 years...? I mean, pick the right tool and all.

--
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
Re:Once again... by Solosoft · 2006-01-31 17:32 · Score: 1

You do know that a broken mbr can be fixed by booting the XP CD and going to the recovery console and typing "fixmbr"

--
Solosoft.org - Your Online Resource to Nothing
Re:Once again... by Air-conditioned+cowh · 2006-01-31 18:15 · Score: 1

Why do you feel compelled to upgrade your linux distro?
Basically because so much software only works with the latest and greatest versions of libraries. Try installing the latest version of G-Streamer or VLC 0.8.4 on Redhat Enterprise 3, for example. I have actually wanted to do this recently to try and get streaming Theora to work instead of having to use Real Media. Since the encoding server is, well, a server, I can't just upgrade the OS. Yes, it is an unusual use for a server, I know.

Generally, I find brand new applications install easily on old versions of Windows better than they do on old versions of Linux. If you stick with an old distro you have to stick with all the old applications that came with it.
Re:Once again... by artifex2004 · 2006-01-31 18:30 · Score: 1

They didn't need a new IE until Firefox started creating bona fide competition.

So where's the OSX version -- or do they still think Apple is no competition?
Re:Once again... by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2006-01-31 22:32 · Score: 1

But there's nothing in IE to win my heart, either.
Firefox has some stuff that just makes my life easy. Middle clicking a link opens a new tab, I can carry on reading and then go to the next tab later. The "find" feature is a massive improvement on how IE does it.
I'd disagree with you about frequent releases. Frequent releases mean you get your customers something right now. Is Firefox poor because it lacks SVG? No. But SVG is a benefit that's been added. Adding Python for XUL is something I'm looking forward to, but it's not desired by everyone. Should Mozilla wait until they've built everything they want before releasing?
Re:Once again... by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2006-01-31 22:52 · Score: 1

I don't think Microsoft will get that far behind.
The problem for them is that we are reaching a plateau in PC computing. Office does everything that 99% of users needs. Firefox 1.5 is enough for 99% of users needs. Windows does 99% of what users need.
Most people have a PC that can outrun them for the applications they use - the things that slow most people down are the speed of their internet connection, and their hard drive speed. I know a lot of home and SOHO users running on 1Ghz laptops and they'll probably change them when the laptop breaks and not before.
Lots of people are still running Windows 2000 with Office 2000. In the companies that I do consulting for, it's about the most common OS/office combination I see. People have it rolled out, and it does everything they need. Doing a rollout to XP is a risk and a cost. In the past, people would have upgraded because the improvement was significant, and they were typically turning over machines at quite a rate.
There are architectural changes that can be made to improve stability, security and performance, but a lot of users don't think in those terms (until a resulting disaster occurs).
Re:Once again... by CastrTroy · 2006-02-01 02:05 · Score: 1

Well is there a place where I can go to get all these browser helper objects? if MS came up with this extension concept, there must be tons of extensions out there for IE. Maybe I can just install the tab helper extension, and then I won't have to complain about IE anymore. The only place i've seen tabs for IE is in things you have to install that install a bunch of other stuff you don't need for the tabs to function correctly.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:Once again... by zipoff · 2006-02-01 02:14 · Score: 1

http://windowsmarketplace.com/content.aspx?ctId=63
Re:Once again... by richlv · 2006-02-01 03:06 · Score: 1

and this is why ms fanboys should be BLOODY THANKFUL to opensource developers/users.

if not for them, ms would never upgrade ie, windows would have not gained on stability on security.

now, they should at last copy virtual desktops for windows chicken.

--
Rich
Re:Once again... by will_die · 2006-02-01 03:14 · Score: 1

They put a notice that for MS-SQL, and some other business software, they are planning to go on a 2 year release cycle and that the 5 years was far to long.
The basic reason most business purchase an upgrade contract for a few years and with it taking multiple years between releases people were not purchasing them.
Re:Once again... by jp10558 · 2006-02-01 04:33 · Score: 1

I can't talk much about Linux save what I've read, as I've never been very successful installing applications on any linux. But there are lots of apps that for whatever reason only work on WinXP and newer (I think to force upgrades, I can't imagine there was some big difference between Photoshop 7 and CS1 that necessitated WinXP only, same with the latest Encarta) and others that only work on 2k and newer (which makes sense as NT is somewhat different from 9x).

But is there some reason you (or maybe the app creators - let's place blame where it's due) can't bring in newer libraries for that app?

--
Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3

Tabbed Browsing!!! by gasmonso · 2006-01-31 07:19 · Score: 2, Funny

Way to lead the pack MS!!!!

http://religiousfreaks.com/

Re:Tabbed Browsing!!! by denverradiosucks · 2006-01-31 08:33 · Score: 1

Mod Parent Up! Come on people, it was a joke. I thought it was funny. Too bad I'm out of mod points or I would.

ACID2 test? by Spy+der+Mann · 2006-01-31 07:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

How do they fare in the ACID2 test, compared to their old bloody (everything's red, it must be blood!) result? Can anyone post a screenshot?

Re:ACID2 test? by finkployd · 2006-01-31 07:33 · Score: 1

How do they fare in the ACID2 test, compared to their old bloody (everything's red, it must be blood!) result? Can anyone post a screenshot?

Poorly, I would post a screenshot but I did not read through the entire EULA to know if that is forbidden. Let's just say it is still bloody.

Out of curiousity, what does currently pass acid2? Firefox certainly does not either (although I suppose it is a little closer)

Finkployd
Re:ACID2 test? by verbatim · 2006-01-31 07:34 · Score: 2, Informative

Doesn't look too good

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/4388/ie7b2acid4pw .jpg

--
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
Re:ACID2 test? by Jugalator · 2006-01-31 07:39 · Score: 1

Microsoft has said before their aim isn't to complete it, so I guess they fail it more or less horribly.

--
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Re:ACID2 test? by l33t.g33k · 2006-01-31 07:39 · Score: 1

Safari and Konqueror pass the Acid2 test. Unfortunately, I can't post screenshots of it because I'm on windouse right now.

--
My sig is permanently on strike.
Re:ACID2 test? by MartinG · 2006-01-31 07:43 · Score: 1

Does anyone know anything that _does_ pass that test?

--
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu
Re:ACID2 test? by mattyohe · 2006-01-31 07:46 · Score: 2, Informative

The latest version of Safari. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/28/121 5227

--
- what is the definition of simultanagnosia?! I've been meaning to look it up!
Re:ACID2 test? by Illissius · 2006-01-31 08:03 · Score: 2, Informative

In addition to the above, Opera 9 preview 1 almost passes except for a single yellow block which is rendered red. I'd guess even that is fixed in the internal builds by now (and I also have a suspicion there'll be a new preview soon, but that's just me ;).

--
Work is punishment for failing to procrastinate effectively.
Re:ACID2 test? by HadenT · 2006-01-31 08:08 · Score: 1

Konqueror 3.5.1 (almost): Acid2 test image
Re:ACID2 test? by Dysan2k · 2006-01-31 08:11 · Score: 1

What version of Konqueror? 3.4 does not render it properly. I don't have a safari browser handy to see that one.

--
-What have you contributed lately?
Re:ACID2 test? by coljac · 2006-01-31 08:34 · Score: 1

Opera 9 is getting close, and will pass it by the time it's ready for release.

If IE7 is that bad - IE6 with tabs - it's going to make life hell for us web developers. :(

--
Everyone knows that damage is done to the soul by bad motion pictures. -Pope Pius XI
Re:ACID2 test? by SleeknStealthy · 2006-01-31 08:36 · Score: 2, Funny

I just installed IE 7 Beta 2 from the Microsoft Website and using the test provided here:

http://www.webstandards.org/act/acid2/reference.ht ml

IE 7 passed the test with flying colors. The only browser that does this good is Konqueror.

Joe

--
Math
Re:ACID2 test? by FuzzyBad-Mofo · 2006-01-31 08:43 · Score: 1

Nice Gnome footprint menu.. were you running this under Linux by any chance?
Re:ACID2 test? by RPoet · 2006-01-31 08:48 · Score: 1

Try 3.5. Renders perfectly.

--
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
Re:ACID2 test? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-31 08:50 · Score: 1, Informative

Oh dear...you do know you are linking to the reference page and not the test itself, don't you?
Re:ACID2 test? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-31 08:52 · Score: 1, Informative

http://www.webstandards.org/act/acid2/reference.ht ml is the reference, not the test. Of course it looks right.
Re:ACID2 test? by Bulln-Bulln · 2006-01-31 09:34 · Score: 1

iCab 3 passes the test. See http://vric.free.fr/mac/iCab/iCab3b/ (includes other browser's screenshots as well).

Curent Trunk buids of Firefox (and other Gecko browsers) are getting real close. Here's a screenshot: http://www.flickr.com/photos/11294384@N00/93741157 /. This one was taken with Camino, but Firefox' rendering should look just like this.
Re:ACID2 test? by rm69990 · 2006-01-31 09:37 · Score: 1

How about doing as ImageShack asks, and using their page with advertisements? Or are you helping them pay for the bandwidth out of your own pocket?
Re:ACID2 test? by shish · 2006-01-31 09:44 · Score: 1

It looks more like the fireball demons from Doom than a smiley face o_o;;
Maybe it's a metaphor comparing IE vs Standards...

--
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
Re:ACID2 test? by SleeknStealthy · 2006-01-31 10:06 · Score: 3, Funny

Haha...that is hilarious, I guess I should pay better attention. Thanks for pointing out my error. Joe

--
Math
Re:ACID2 test? by hullabalucination · 2006-01-31 10:20 · Score: 1

My Konqueror 3.5.0-0.1.fc4 passes. Hmmm...interesting. Wonder if a library difference is responsible for your newer version of Konqueror just missing, while my slightly older version sails on through? Libpng, maybe? Is it possible to get a newer Konqueror and older KDElibs?
Re:ACID2 test? by Angostura · 2006-01-31 10:28 · Score: 1

Apple's Safari renders it just fine.
Re:ACID2 test? by kimvette · 2006-01-31 12:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

Want to see a screenshot of Acid2 in Konqueror? Check it out:

http://kim.biyn.com/files/images/konqueror_3.5_pas ses_acid2_thanks_apple.png

Also: Google Maps works just fine in Konqueror as well (a hell of a lot better than in Firefox) if you spoof Safari's user agent. Just FYI.

--
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Re:ACID2 test? by l33t.g33k · 2006-01-31 13:10 · Score: 1

Dysan2k, here is the announcement of Konqueror passing Acid2: http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/1129

Konqueror first passed the Acid2 test last June, about a month or two after Safari. It works in Konqueror 3.4.2.

--
My sig is permanently on strike.
Re:ACID2 test? by Igmuth · 2006-01-31 14:22 · Score: 1

Scrolling with the test also has a bug, but your point still stands..
Re:ACID2 test? by Allnighterking · 2006-01-31 17:57 · Score: 1

2 browsers pass Safari and Konqueror 3.5. IE 7 is actual worse than IE 6 on CSS if you can believe it.

--
I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.

first look - running dialogue by Tumbleweed · 2006-01-31 07:20 · Score: 5, Informative

Okay, first start it up, and you get a web site with a broken image and 'errors on page'. Nice.

Somewhat goofy interface, reminiscent of Opera. Oy. How do I turn off these cartoony buttons?

Built-in phishing protection = good

Okay, load the company's homepage:

Layout seems perfect.

Uhoh - dig the heavy main font; THAT ain't right. Something as basic as font weight is fucked up? Very bad. It looks like everything is bolded now. :( The fonts _look_ nice, though, unless they're italic, then they're hard to read. Definitely some font issues going on here.

It's also slower with the menu changing background colours. Probably because of debugging code in the beta. I hope.

Okay, quick check to see if IE6 is still on here...aaaannddd...of course not. Fuckers. Okay, let's check in Firefox, yep, what I thought. IE7 is messing up some of the menu's CSS effects - sometimes putting an underline under some of the items when it shouldn't. Still beta, so no biggie.

Okay, load company site 2:

More sophisticated layout, layout still fine. Good.

Okay, load company site 3:

Much more sophisticated layout, and front page layout looks fine, but visited link colour is wrong.

Built-in close-tab X on each tab, but only when focused on that tab. Better than default FF behaviour, but they should take a look at Tab Mix Plus extension features.

Okay, let's check the Options!

Popup blocker defaults to off? Bleh.

Prompt to save passwords on forms defaults to off? Bleh.

AHA - font problem solved - installing IE7 turns on ClearType: MONDO STUPID. Turn of ClearType, restart, fonts are back to normal. Whew.

Okay, so, it seems to load Slashdot well enough.

It remembers many IE6 settings, but others (like preferred fonts) it does not. Not a biggie for a beta.

So, all in all, not bad for the first public beta.

Same ctrl-T to open new tab as in FF. Bueno.

Re:first look - running dialogue by bunratty · 2006-01-31 07:25 · Score: 1

not bad for the first public beta.
Isn't this just a preview of Beta 2? I head the final Beta 2 will be out in April.

--
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Re:first look - running dialogue by bunratty · 2006-01-31 07:28 · Score: 1

I should have previewed my post more carefully. I actually heard the final Beta 2 will be out in April.

--
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Re:first look - running dialogue by thatguywhoiam · 2006-01-31 07:42 · Score: 1

Heh, thanks for the 'running commentary'...
AHA - font problem solved - installing IE7 turns on ClearType: MONDO STUPID. Turn of ClearType, restart, fonts are back to normal. Whew.
Quick question for you: does IE7 antialias text normally? Or is it a ClearType-only thing? I understand ClearType to be only for LCD panels. (Also, what do you hate about it? I've never used it myself.)
There's only two things I want from IE7 as a designer: antialiased fonts and PNG alpha channel support. I doubt I'll get either.

--
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Re:first look - running dialogue by Tumbleweed · 2006-01-31 07:53 · Score: 2, Informative

Quick question for you: does IE7 antialias text normally? Or is it a ClearType-only thing? I understand ClearType to be only for LCD panels. (Also, what do you hate about it? I've never used it myself.)

It IS only for LCD panels, though some people will tell you it also works on CRTs: not true. There are no subpixels on a CRT. If you have a discerning eye, you'll hate it on a CRT. What I don't like about what it does to text on a CRT: it makes everything look bold. It mostly looks better, even on a CRT, but only for normal or bolded text; italicized text looks _terrible_, and it very hard to read.

There's only two things I want from IE7 as a designer: antialiased fonts and PNG alpha channel support. I doubt I'll get either.

Well, there is a font setting in Windows to emulated antialiases fonts that works well enough (but it'll never look like text on a Mac). I'd say forget that for sure - that belongs in the OS, not in an application.

PNG alpha channel - already in there, officially, per the IE team. w00t!, etc.
Re:first look - running dialogue by iamlucky13 · 2006-01-31 08:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

Prompt to save passwords on forms defaults to off? Bleh.
I very strongly feel that saving passwords on forms should be off by default, given the number of shared computers out there (why not handle that option during the "advanced user" install?). I recently sat down at a computer in a school lab and the Gmail login page loaded up with someone elses username and password already filled in, no doubt because they'd gone to login, and the dialog had popped up asking them if they wanted it to remember their password, and they clicked yes without thinking about it. Yes, that would be a stupid move, but a lot of users have gotten used to "Yes, load the insecure website,"; "Yes, accept the third party content"; etc. Keep in mind this episode happened with Slashdot's favorite "secure" browswer, Firefox. Anyway, since it happened to be a friend's email account, I logged in and sent him a mysterious email from his own account letting him know, but other people could've done much worse.

I'm a little surprised. I remember a story several months back saying that IE7 would only work on Vista. Is this just a special build with limited features, or will we see IE7 be backwards compatible? More importantly, I'm dying to know if there has been any improvement to the CSS support since beta 1.
Re:first look - running dialogue by Val314 · 2006-01-31 08:06 · Score: 1

enabling Cleartype is actually a very good idea. (but it doesnt make much sense for a browser to do this, it should be enabled by default)

there is a quite interesting video (http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=146 749 ) about it. (it basicly says that people can read ClearType text faster and more accurate than standard text
Re:first look - running dialogue by laklare · 2006-01-31 08:10 · Score: 1

I agree with you about the antialiasing on CRTs. I don't even like it on LCDs though. The "standard" smooth edges mode in the Windows' display control panel seems to work the best for me. I like my fonts sharp and contrasty - not blurry and smudged.
Re:first look - running dialogue by Tumbleweed · 2006-01-31 08:13 · Score: 1

enabling Cleartype is actually a very good idea.

Only if it's on an LCD; if it's a CRT, then it's a matter of opinion as to whether it's a good thing. For me, it is not, but I have a very discerning eye. Regular text is more readable (thought it's also bigger, which I consider a major design flaw in ClearType), but italicized text is unbearable, based on my own experience.

I'd love to see ClearType on an LCD, but I'll likely be running a Mac long before I have the money for a decent LCD anyway, so it won't make a difference. :)

C'mon Intel Mac mini - hurry up already!
Re:first look - running dialogue by naasking · 2006-01-31 08:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

Built-in phishing protection = good

Actually, it's horrible. It submits every URL you try to access to MS for verification. Same with the Google toolbar in fact, except the latter is even worse because it submits it over an unencrypted connection. These anti-phishing efforts break the current semantics of the web. These efforts are seriously misguided and truly disheartening, particularly when there are perfectly good anti-phishing tools that do things right.

--
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
Re:first look - running dialogue by tshak · 2006-01-31 08:47 · Score: 1

Popup blocker defaults to off? Bleh.

Actually, it defaults to on. You may have been confused by the "Always open popups in new window" option in which controls the behavior of a a popup that's already been allowed. Check the Privacy tab for the popup blocker settings.

--

There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Re:first look - running dialogue by KiloByte · 2006-01-31 08:58 · Score: 1

Actually, you CAN'T have normal gray-scale aliasing on Windows. It simply ignores any attempts to turn it on even if you use the relevant APIs, for all sizes 7-13.

On the other hand, if you say that ClearType should be on, it is on. This makes it the only apparent way to force anti-aliasing, and thus, it is useful even on CRTs in big resolutions on a small physical display.

Thus, it's best to use:
* Windows, LCD -> ClearType
* Windows, CRT, small-to-medium res per size -> no antialiasing :(
* Windows, CRT, big res, tiny screen -> ClearType
* FreeType renderer (Linux, ...), LCD -> sub-pixel anti-aliasing (ie, ClearType without the TM mark :p)
* FreeType renderer, CRT -> gray-scale anti-aliasing

This leads to ridiculous results, where the new Vista fonts are really usable on CRT only if you use a non-Microsoft system. And I admit that they are just awesome.

--
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Re:first look - running dialogue by Tumbleweed · 2006-01-31 09:00 · Score: 1

Mine said "Popup Block" and the checkbox was unchecked. I'm assuming that means it defaults to off. *shrug*
Re:first look - running dialogue by n9uxu8 · 2006-01-31 09:14 · Score: 1

Of course, cleartype is wicked ugly on LCDs as well...
Re:first look - running dialogue by joeljkp · 2006-01-31 09:21 · Score: 1

One thing I like about IE is that it automatically picks up your Windows DPI settings.

Firefox has its own setting, and it makes you measure a line on-screen to set it, instead of just typing in the DPI you want.

IE wins on this one.

--
WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
Re:first look - running dialogue by Cl1mh4224rd · 2006-01-31 09:41 · Score: 1

I'm a little surprised. I remember a story several months back saying that IE7 would only work on Vista. Is this just a special build with limited features, or will we see IE7 be backwards compatible?
It was known that IE7 would be made available for Windows XP for almost a year...

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/02/15/373104 .aspx

--
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
Re:first look - running dialogue by cg0def · 2006-01-31 10:00 · Score: 1

Ok considering that most people use lcds turning clear type on is actully a great idea. Plus there is an option to turn it off so stop whining.
Also the deault search engine is MSN and NOT yahoo and there is an option to add google or one of 20 or so others. Though Firefox does have a wider support.
The memory usage is also not that different from firefox although it is somewhat higher at times. It is a beta though. The interface looks great IMHO and is a deffinite step up from the usual MS look. Also the interface provides several features that I really love ( the zoom in level for one ). The phishing is NOT turned on by default and on the first use it asks you to chose how you want it to be. All in all this is pretty good software and does catch up with the trends in modern web browsing. Oh yeah, the menu bar is missing which could be confusing for some people. A little Opera style but other than that it's cool. Considering that the rendering engine for some backgrounds is way better than gecko I might actully start using IE again.

Overall I really find this new version of IE to be worth the wait. It is a huge step from what IE6 is.
There also seems to be a slight change in the IE icon. Not sure what that is about but I like the old one better.
Re:first look - running dialogue by hkmwbz · 2006-01-31 10:01 · Score: 1

"Somewhat goofy interface, reminiscent of Opera."
Sigh.
Have you actually tried the latest version of Opera, or are you just spreading the tired old Mozilla fan meme about Opera's "terrible interface"?

--
Clever signature text goes here.
Re:first look - running dialogue by Tumbleweed · 2006-01-31 10:07 · Score: 1

Of course, cleartype is wicked ugly on LCDs as well...

I figured it would be; I remember ClearType back on my Apple //e, and the extra colours around the letters bugged me even back then. Hopefully the extra resolution of modern computers will make it work better when I get around to buying an LCD. I'm still waiting for better black rendition. I'll probably wind up getting a SED monitor before a decent LCD is available.
Re:first look - running dialogue by Tumbleweed · 2006-01-31 10:11 · Score: 1

I think ClearType on a CRT is a matter of personal preference. To my eye, it looks good for regular and bold text, but it makes everything kinda bolded (and bolded more bolded), which is not good for those of us who prefer light fonts. For italics, it's _really_ bad, as I learned today.

As for your guide, it would be helpful to know what you mean by a 'tiny' screen, and 'big' res. My work machine has a 17" CRT running at 1024x768, and I considered ClearType a failure on it.

But then again, I'm one of those people who are incredibly annoyed by dampening wires on aperture grille monitors. I'm amazed most people don't even notice them, or aren't bothered by them. They must be blind or somethin'...
Re:first look - running dialogue by Tumbleweed · 2006-01-31 10:15 · Score: 1

Ok considering that most people use lcds turning clear type on is actully a great idea. Plus there is an option to turn it off so stop whining.

I wasn't aware that most people used LCDs - where do you get that information?

Whether it's true or not, an APPLICATION shouldn't be turning that on without warning; that should be an OS setting that an application should use.
Re:first look - running dialogue by Tumbleweed · 2006-01-31 10:17 · Score: 1

I've tried the Opera 9 beta, and it's now 'somewhat' goofy, which is what I said, not 'terrible.' Big difference between 'somewhat goofy' and 'terrible,' though hopefully English isn't your native language. :)

If I could turn some of that stuff off in IE7's interface, that'd be just fine; it's very Win XPish for my taste.
Re:first look - running dialogue by shellbeach · 2006-01-31 10:29 · Score: 1

I figured it would be; I remember ClearType back on my Apple //e, and the extra colours around the letters bugged me even back then.

Uh, your Apple IIe didn't have an LCD monitor, and the resolution (280x192 for maybe a 12" screen) was shocking.

I'm pretty much only using LCD monitors these days and I can tell you that "ClearType" on Windows works just great, as does sub-pixel anti-aliasing (same thing, just no fancy name) on X. You really don't notice any colour around the text, until you use xmag or something to blow it up. The only caveat is that you have to make sure you're using correctly hinted fonts (which was the problem Fedora fell into a few releases ago - their default font wasn't hinted and sub-pixel aa was enabled by default for LCDs ... it looked disgusting!! I wonder if they've fixed it yet?). If you want a good example of "cleartype" rendering on LCD, try Ubuntu.

The grandparent post was probably using some strange free font that wasn't hinted, or else they'd got a panel with the RGB orientation different from the norm and hadn't corrected for it ...
Re:first look - running dialogue by KiloByte · 2006-01-31 10:37 · Score: 1

Of course, 17" CRT and 1024x768 with ClearType is a bad idea. But, when my work monitor broken down and was temporarily replaced with a 15" one at just 1280x1024, I would say that it looked better with ClearType than without it. But yeah, at any pixel size larger than that, the smudged look and visible color bleeding is bad.

Generally, it depends on the font you want to use. All fonts shipped with Windows are an utter mistake with ClearType, on LCD or not. They were made with no AA in mind, and they look just ugly. On the other hand, the new Vista fonts simply need anti-aliasing of some kind.

--
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Re:first look - running dialogue by Tumbleweed · 2006-01-31 11:08 · Score: 1

Uh, your Apple IIe didn't have an LCD monitor, and the resolution (280x192 for maybe a 12" screen) was shocking.

True, it wasn't LCD (obviously), but it's CRT did have subpixels. Same effect, really.

I love your use of the term 'shocking' regarding the Apple //e's resolution. :)

You really don't notice any colour around the text, until you use xmag or something to blow it up.

I'm wondering if that's true only for black & white text? I'd like to see some ClearType on a coloured background or with coloured text sometime.
Re:first look - running dialogue by Tumbleweed · 2006-01-31 11:14 · Score: 1

The Vista fonts may be great (I'd like to see them), but IE7 (or ANY _application_) turning on ClearType (espeically with no warning!) is a seriously bad idea.

I wish MS would release the Vista fonts ahead of Vista. *shrug*
Re:first look - running dialogue by iceanfire · 2006-01-31 11:15 · Score: 1

My problems with ie7

1. when i opened up ie7, ciadeamon started indexing my harddrive for no reason. I had to go to services and disable it. I don't know if it is related, but I had no other programs (other than speedswitch xp) running. It was slowing my computer down to a crawl since laptop harddrives are pretty slow as it is.

2. somehow i manged to make the file, edit, view etc... menu disappear. In ie6 and firefox I could move the file/edit/view etc.. menu right next to the location bar, but now for somereason they don't let you do it. If you're a ie develpor, i'm not sure how to report this, so just ask me what to do and i'll try. It still shows up when i press alt+f (for file), but then disappears . This isn't a prpoblem for me, I actually like it because less space is taken up, but for 'n00bs' i suppose that would be a huge problem.

3. the search engine hotkey is ctrl e, please change it to ctrl+k, because that is more accesible (as it is in the home key row).

4. where are the live bookmarks?

5. they haven't improved the search (ctrl+f). I couldn't find any option for 'find as you type' or a simple hotkey like '.' to start searching the page. The same old invasive interface is there. I did enable the 'search pane' but have no clue what that does because it requires me to restart ie (which i will do when i'm done typing this up).

Good things
1. ram usage is not too much
2. default search engine is google
3. while i miss livebookmarks, I love the new rss interface and how you can search etc.
4. print preview etc... is good.

please improve it.

thanks
Re:first look - running dialogue by thatguywhoiam · 2006-01-31 11:23 · Score: 1

Thanks for the info. And that's great news about PNG/alpha support - that will make a big difference to my work. (When IE7 becomes fairly standard, in 2 years. Hooray.)
The antialiasing thing is somewhat baffling to me, although I know all the reasons why Windows is in the state its in. When I switch to the iMac I have at work from the PC, its like night and day. I hate reading Slashdot with IE6 or even Firefox on PC; italicized text looks like shite. So I'm surprised people don't react more strongly... I've never played with the 'faux AA' you mentioned, I'll try that.
If IE7 - or really Windows, as you correctly point out this is an OS function - had proper antialiased text as standard, I could get away with designing sites using livetext headers and titles, and have them look as good as they could if they were GIFs out of Photoshop. (Not every situation mind you, but lots.) Anyways, I appreciate the reply.

--
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Re:first look - running dialogue by TheSpoom · 2006-01-31 12:37 · Score: 1

FYI, in case you haven't heard about it, there is a quick Javascript fix that allows full-alpha PNGs to work in IE 5.5 and up, not break Mozilla and others, and not affect W3C validation. It's called Sleight. (And while I don't take any credit for the original, you might try using my version of Sleight to allow for Opera users mimicking IE, though remember you still need x.gif.)

--
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
Re:first look - running dialogue by Osty · 2006-01-31 12:44 · Score: 1

1. when i opened up ie7, ciadeamon started indexing my harddrive for no reason. I had to go to services and disable it. I don't know if it is related, but I had no other programs (other than speedswitch xp) running. It was slowing my computer down to a crawl since laptop harddrives are pretty slow as it is.

I assume you mean "cidaemon", or Indexing Services. I have that disabled and IE7 didn't enable it on me. Maybe your machine just incorrectly decided it was idle and started indexing because you had never turned it off? Then again, I have the service set to "Disabled" rather than "Manual". If you have it as "Manual", applications can still start it.

2. somehow i manged to make the file, edit, view etc... menu disappear. In ie6 and firefox I could move the file/edit/view etc.. menu right next to the location bar, but now for somereason they don't let you do it. If you're a ie develpor, i'm not sure how to report this, so just ask me what to do and i'll try. It still shows up when i press alt+f (for file), but then disappears . This isn't a prpoblem for me, I actually like it because less space is taken up, but for 'n00bs' i suppose that would be a huge problem.

Right-click the toolbar with the Home and RSS buttons, and choose "Classic Menu". That'll give you back your File/Edit/View menu. It'll still be underneath the back/forward buttons and address bar, though.

4. where are the live bookmarks?

Feeds? Click the circled-star icon to the left of the tabs to open the "Favorites Center", and click on Feeds. You can add new feeds through the RSS button on the toolbar on the right (using the new "standard" RSS icon!).

5. they haven't improved the search (ctrl+f). I couldn't find any option for 'find as you type' or a simple hotkey like '.' to start searching the page. The same old invasive interface is there. I did enable the 'search pane' but have no clue what that does because it requires me to restart ie (which i will do when i'm done typing this up).

There's only so much they can fix/change in so much time. For example, they may not have changed the Find In Page functionality yet, but they did implement better text zooming (zooms pixel-based layouts, and can zoom by percentages using ctrl-scrollwheel as well as by small/medium/large). Give them time. Personally, I'd rather have a nice find in page than print preview, but that's because I almost never print.

1. ram usage is not too much

Keep using it. I've found that it's a bit more memory-intensive than IE6, but perhaps that's just because I now a higher average number of sites open at any given time thanks to tabs.
Re:first look - running dialogue by shellbeach · 2006-01-31 13:39 · Score: 1

True, it wasn't LCD (obviously), but it's CRT did have subpixels. Same effect, really.

Oh yeah - the monitor pixels were in stripes, weren't they? You know, the funny thing was that I always assumed that the wacky colour fringe on the text was a display bug ... I guess there weren't too many shades of sub-pixel colour available back then!

I love your use of the term 'shocking' regarding the Apple //e's resolution. :)

It was shocking! Even at the time, I remember thinking how crap it looked ... :)

I'm wondering if that's true only for black & white text? I'd like to see some ClearType on a coloured background or with coloured text sometime.

No, it works for all text colours ... I'm wondering how that works myself, now, but it does ...
Re:first look - running dialogue by .com+b4+.storm · 2006-01-31 14:24 · Score: 1

Yes, that would be a stupid move, but a lot of users have gotten used to "Yes, load the insecure website,"; "Yes, accept the third party content"; etc.

More justification for the approach that Apple uses - have verbs on the buttons, instead of generic crap like "ok" and "yes". If the button actually said "Save" or "Save Password" it might give the user some pause. It's also generally considered that these kinds of dialogs are easier to follow. As soon as they pop up, you have some idea of what will happen when you click on a button, even without reading the message.

They could either have password saving turned off by default, or have a sane dialog along these lines to make it clear that this is something different. They could have clearly marked verb push buttons, and maybe even go so far that there is no default for the enter key - you'd have to explicitly click the button to enable it, or explicitly use the shortcut for the button.

--
"Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
-- Ryan Stiles
Re:first look - running dialogue by kiddailey · 2006-01-31 14:33 · Score: 1

Wow. Talk about a potential privacy issue. I wonder if that will be removed for the final release.
Re:first look - running dialogue by Merle+Darling · 2006-01-31 14:42 · Score: 1

Oddly enough, it defaulted to Google in the searchbox for me.

--
"Bother," said Pooh, as lightning knocked out hi%#&(F*@NO CARRIER
Re:first look - running dialogue by naasking · 2006-01-31 14:51 · Score: 1

Wow. Talk about a potential privacy issue. I wonder if that will be removed for the final release.

I doubt it. That's how it's intended to operate.

--
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
Re:first look - running dialogue by spitzak · 2006-01-31 18:09 · Score: 1

No, wrong. The antialiasing selection is done by configurtion files, not the fonts themselves. The fonts contain no inforamtion that says "I can be antialiased but should not be". You may be confused by bitmapped fonts, which cannot be antialiased. Or more likely, Microsoft has a list somewhere of what fonts can be antialiased and you have not found it yet or it is inaccessible through the control panel.
Re:first look - running dialogue by spitzak · 2006-01-31 18:14 · Score: 1

I was under the impression that ClearType is not just the LCD sub-pixel rendering, but the entire "new" antialiasing scheme, designed to replace "Font Smoothing" and useful on both CRTs and LCDs. I don't have any new Windows machines here to test it on, but I remember trying this in a store and the control panel certainly had the ability to turn ClearType on/off that was *seperate* from a control that said whether to use the LCD or not. It is possible this second control has been removed because they have a way to determine this directly from the monitor information. In any case I thought ClearType, even in grayscale, was a big improvement over Font Smoothing (which was also available), and looked more like the antialiasing on OS/X and Linux, probably because it is the same algorithim.

I would certainly expect Microsoft to turn ClearType on at all times if it works the way I think. Although people get programmed to like the way things look and thus complain about "blurry" fonts when they see any gray pixels, the average non-full-time computer user greatly prefers the ClearType output, and so will everybody once they get used to it.

OS/X has antialiasing on at all times, how come nobody complains about it?
Re:first look - running dialogue by ady1 · 2006-01-31 23:23 · Score: 1

How do I turn off these cartoony buttons?

switch to windows classic theme?
Re:first look - running dialogue by gnud · 2006-02-01 01:14 · Score: 1

Heh, with the recent nVidia driver update for linux, the drivers calculated DPI wrong. I loved firefox very much right then.

Ad blocker? by dada21 · 2006-01-31 07:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

Some AdSense advertisers are complaining that IE7 has a built in adblocker specifically targetting Google's ads. Can anyone confirm this?

Re:Ad blocker? by Apathist · 2006-01-31 07:23 · Score: 1

With no information at all, I'm going to have to call bullshit. There is just no way MS would risk beign sued black-and-blue over decreasing Google's revenue by a fraction of a percent...
Re:Ad blocker? by dada21 · 2006-01-31 07:29 · Score: 1

That's what I thought, too, but a bunch of forums have people complaining, I just wanted some verification.

One link here: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=52 925&highlight=ie7
Re: Ad blocker? by labreuer · 2006-01-31 07:32 · Score: 1

Methinks they should build an add-on that blocks AdSense and publish it through some fake company. I'm sure loads of Google's AdSense revenue comes from IE users. If Microsoft really wants to get into the search business or generally compete with Google, what better way to attack an opponent in the style Microsoft is famous for? Alternatively, one could simply use Firefox and download an extension that makes AdSense ads invisible ;)
Re:Ad blocker? by IAmNotBillGates · 2006-01-31 07:39 · Score: 1

Not confirming. Adsense works fine over here.
Re:Ad blocker? by jdavidb · 2006-01-31 08:16 · Score: 1

BTW, how do you feel about ad blockers?

--
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Re:Ad blocker? by afidel · 2006-01-31 08:24 · Score: 1

Mod this up. This is the simple cause of the issue and a direct result of the people adding adsense not understanding how SSL and browser security work.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re: Ad blocker? by Bert64 · 2006-01-31 08:58 · Score: 1

Firefox can already do this with adblock, but i only ever block ads which are intrusive (popups, flashing graphical ads etc)

--
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Re:Ad blocker? by Buran · 2006-01-31 14:01 · Score: 1

Wow. Imagine that. An adblocker that blocks ads! A product that does what it's supposed to! Call the BBB -- we've GOT to complain! That's not allowed!

--
i am a soviet space shuttle

Looks nice but.... by jerryodom · 2006-01-31 07:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

Doesn't bode well when I'm getting Javascript errors at the IE7 tour page and in the tour pages. I do like the quick tabs. They seem like they'll be pretty useful. Lets hope the the security measures really help secure our PCs and not open us up to new attacks.

--
For some reason I refuse to use either spell check or the spacebar properly.

Seamonkey by stecoop · 2006-01-31 07:22 · Score: 2, Informative

I still like seamonkey better http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/news.htm l

Re:Seamonkey by digitaldc · 2006-01-31 07:35 · Score: 1

Well done! Looks like you just predicted the /. future:

COMING UP NEXT ON SLASHDOT:
SeaMonkey 1.0 Released
Posted by Zonk in The Mysterious Future!

--
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson

pre-install note: by Tumbleweed · 2006-01-31 07:22 · Score: 4, Informative

You must do the 'Windows Genuine Advantage' thingy before it'll install.

Re:pre-install note: by Kesch · 2006-01-31 07:28 · Score: 1

Damnit, there goes my beta. P.S. I have genuine Windows; I just won't admit it.

--
If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
Re:pre-install note: by grcumb · 2006-01-31 07:39 · Score: 3, Funny

"You must do the 'Windows Genuine Advantage' thingy before it'll install."

Ok, that explains it. I figured the mirrors were just slow:

user@ubuntu:~$ sudo apt-get install msie7 Password: Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done E: Couldn't find package msie7 user@ubuntu:~$

--
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Re:pre-install note: by Tumbleweed · 2006-01-31 07:46 · Score: 1

Windows Update is different from the IE7 preview installer, FYI.
Re:pre-install note: by Kenshin · 2006-01-31 07:54 · Score: 1

No, it requires WGA to INSTALL.

BTW, WTF is "wala"? Do you mean "voila"?

--
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
Re:pre-install note: by Tumbleweed · 2006-01-31 08:09 · Score: 1

It's not a matter of getting the IE7 beta installer AFTER the WGA challenge; it's part of the _installer_ itself. I downloaded the installer before using WGA (my WinXP is legal).

Someone else here just posted instructions about using a hacked DLL; but I don't know if those instructions work; that's left as an exercise for the reader.

Had A Chance... by u16084 · 2006-01-31 07:22 · Score: 2, Informative

I had the chance to preview... PNG support is there... Still lots of page rendering errors, (slashdot) is one example... page scrolls for ever... tabbed browsing is sweet... some security tweaks.. Once completed...

--
-- I Dont Deserve A Sig I Have Bad Karma

Re:Had A Chance... by jiushao · 2006-01-31 08:49 · Score: 1

Luckily beta 3 promises to fix the bug that inserts "..." randomly in any HTML forms sent.
Re:Had A Chance... by u16084 · 2006-01-31 16:28 · Score: 1

It still has a LONG way to go.. One annoying aspect is you cant relocate your "URL" bar.. its always stuck on top..you can move around every aspect of the tool bar... excet the url... I dont know about everyone else.. but that whole ActiveX thing scares me. That "Allow" directx yellow bar thingie, could be the last button you ever pressed.

--
-- I Dont Deserve A Sig I Have Bad Karma

Beta? Microsoft? by rsborg · 2006-01-31 07:23 · Score: 2, Informative

Hasn't Google trademarked that term? >

Seriously, IE *is* playing catchup. Some will say that this is the end of an IE only net.

Others say that all Microsoft has to do is to just be "good enough" and they can keep their near-monopoly market share of the browsing environment.

One thing that's for sure is that Microsoft is no longer the "apparent" force for innovation that they were in the 90's.
And that tabbed browsing (eg: MDI done properly) is here to stay :-)

--
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

Re:Beta? Microsoft? by PhrostyMcByte · 2006-01-31 08:06 · Score: 1, Insightful

I'll probably be modded to hell for saying this, but I'm of the croud that wants IE to get "good enough".

Firefox was neat but it has never been fast or even adequate at rendering things other than text and has recently come prone to a good deal of bloat. Get me a version that doesn't slow to a crawl with pages heavy with images (seriously- what is it doing, decompressing JPEGs on the fly?) and that doesn't take up hundreds of megs of ram after heavy usage on relatively simple websites, and I'll reconsider my stance.

I'd much prefer to see Firefox fix its flaws than to switch to IE7 when it comes out of beta but somehow that doesn't seem realistic.
Re:Beta? Microsoft? by naelurec · 2006-01-31 08:20 · Score: 1

Others say that all Microsoft has to do is to just be "good enough" and they can keep their near-monopoly market share of the browsing environment.

Why sure.. as a sys admin managing a Windows network, I'm looking for ways to minimize the amount of software I need to maintain. If IE7 is *good enough* (for me this means standards compliance on-par with other modern browsers and minimal security issues) what is the point of keeping, updating and maintaining Firefox on those desktops? Firefox doesn't integrate nicely with active directory/group policies (no official support), it requires 3rd party MSI's for distribution, etc.. all-in-all a PITA (from an administrator POV) .. on top of this, I end up having to support two browsers which is redundant and costly.

Of course, as a /. & FOSSer, there are personal advantages for keeping Firefox on the desktop (exposure for others to FOSS, cross platform compatibility, etc..) but when it comes down to company priorities, if IE is *good enough* and the company is Windows-centric, I really have a hard time justifying installing/maintaining another browser if IE7 meets the minimium criteria.
Re:Beta? Microsoft? by Bert64 · 2006-01-31 09:15 · Score: 1

Most of the problems you describe, such as the lack of integration with active directory and the inability to remove ie are microsoft's fault... All of this is done intentionally to make it difficult for you to use a different browser...

But instead of complaining and doing something about it, most people capitulate to their underhanded tactics... It's like paying off a blackmailer, they'l just screw you over even more in the future because they know they can get away with it.

Why do people stand for such treatment? They wouldn't in any other field, so why stand for it here? Do you think Ford could get away with making it difficult to put non ford branded tyres or gas on their cars? Do you think people would cave in and use ford tyres and gas? Or would there be a big public uproar and lots of people boycotting ford?

--
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Re:Beta? Microsoft? by ScytheBlade1 · 2006-01-31 09:55 · Score: 1

"Most of the problems you describe, such as the lack of integration with active directory"..."are microsoft's fault... All of this is done intentionally to make it difficult for you to use a different browser..."

I can promise you there's nothing in active directory specifically designed to prevent firefox from deploying nicely with Active Directory. There are three ways to make this happen, though:

1) Microsoft publishes a document and updates their OS; the group policy controls instead of saying "Internet Explorer" now read "Web Browser". Firefox then reads the registry (group policy) settings and obeys. Problem: people are coding FOR MS. Slashdot erupts, saying "not only do you want us to use IE, you want us to code our programs to work around your faults."
2) Mozilla goes out, adds in active directory group policy support itself. This includes a small addition to group policy, and additional changes in Firefox. (Read: MOZILLA IS 100% CAPABLE OF ADDING AD SUPPORT THEMSELVES, WITHOUT ASKING MICROSOFT TO FIX THEIR OS TO ALLOW IT AND/OR MAKING IT HARD ON THEM. Ahem, moving on...)
3) Some fun "run on user login" scripts to add the registry changes and prefs.js as needed. Is it group policy? No, but it's close enough.

Either way, MS isn't doing anything to prevent AD/Group Policy support for FireFox..
Re:Beta? Microsoft? by naelurec · 2006-01-31 10:48 · Score: 1

Well actually, there are 3rd parties providing both MSI's and group policy-like features (with the use of login/logoff scripts to modify the user.js) that tie into the MS AD/Group Policy. Unfortunately from my experience, the group policy options are not feature-complete and they break silently between minor versions (ie 1.0.4 to 1.0.7). Creating MSI's was slated for 1.5, not sure what the rationale was to axe it (the third party MSI works quite well, but tends to lag the official releases by a few weeks).

I definitely dislike not being able to uninstall IE and simply having Firefox be my html rendering engine (ie for apps, etc..) but that does not stop Mozilla from supporting AD/Group Policy/MSIs for easier deployment/management of Firefox in a corporate setting.

Bottom line, if a company elects to pay Microsoft for its products and IE7 provides the base-line functionality required (adequate standards compliance, good security track record, etc..) then why add redundant, less easier-to-maintain software to the mix? *assuming* IE7 is similar *enough* to firefox (ie6 is a joke and hense the reason for the current use of Firefox) then Firefox doesn't bring anything to the table and infact, adds IT costs to maintain it on the network + user confusion (two apps doing the same job), additional tool to support, yada yada..

FC4 by czarangelus · 2006-01-31 07:23 · Score: 4, Funny

I'm going to beta test it right now... in Fedora Core 4. And I'm gonna send an error report if it doesn't work, too.

--
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

Re:Ad blocker? Not true by Tumbleweed · 2006-01-31 07:25 · Score: 4, Informative

No - I just loaded a site with google ads and they showed up just fine. At least, for their regular text ads, not the rumoured upcoming graphics/flash ads. I don't know if those are even out yet, though.

IE Is Still an Alzheimer's Patient.... by Muad'Dib129 · 2006-01-31 07:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

I saw the first beta through my company (has an MSDN subscription) and this version LOOKS alot better, but still hogs a ton of memory. At present time, its using 104MB of ram, 79MB of pagefile space. The only thing I have loaded is this wonderful site: slashdot.org. Firefox is using just 24.8MB of memory. Looks like I'm uninstalling already. The UI is pretty, though.

Re:IE Is Still an Alzheimer's Patient.... by Lumpy · 2006-01-31 08:15 · Score: 1

WE have it as well, but the recent mandate to switch all desktops to using FireFox for a browser and disable using IE for security reasons means that we will never deploy it.

Our internet proxy looks at your browser string and disallows anything IE to access the proxy cutting off all internet to IE in the company. This in effect has started huge adoption of users to Firefox for their home pc's as well. I get a request on howto get firefox from a user at least 4 times a day.

Many other corperations are doing this as well, I personally think that IE7 is too little way too late.

Put a fork in it, it's done. If a Microsoft worshipping place like here is abandoning IE for FF then all hope is lost for it.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:IE Is Still an Alzheimer's Patient.... by Mr.+Underbridge · 2006-01-31 08:30 · Score: 4, Funny

Firefox is using just 24.8MB of memory.
Did you know that the abbreviation for gigabytes is GB, not MB?
Re:IE Is Still an Alzheimer's Patient.... by Tumbleweed · 2006-01-31 08:32 · Score: 1

I loaded IE7 and FF and IE7 used about 21meg empty, with FF using about 24meg empty. That's the only memory test I've yet done. It's not like FF is slim on the memory. I wouldn't mind that so much about FF if they would make the UI multithreaded; it's absolutely ridiculous to have such a program have a single threaded UI in this day. Bleh. Does anyone know if FF 2 will have a multithreaded UI? I keep hearing about it for new versions, but it never seems to show up.

Preview tab is sweet by twbecker · 2006-01-31 07:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

I like that you can preview all the tabs you have open in one spot, and either switch to them or close them from there. Honestly, I expect that IE7's tabbed browsing will be better than vanilla Firefox. Firefox gets several things wrong out of the box (which are being fixed for FF2.0, and are available in trunk builds now).

--
"The problem with internet quotations is that many are not genuine" -Abraham Lincoln

Re:Preview tab is sweet by Mikey-San · 2006-01-31 07:35 · Score: 1

I'm glad to see Microsoft continuing to innovate in the up-and-coming field of Web browsers.

--
Mikey-San
Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
Re:Preview tab is sweet by twbecker · 2006-01-31 07:39 · Score: 1

Is that out of the box functionality for Safari? I know Firefox has extensions that will accomplish the same thing, but it's a nice enough feature to be in the base code IMO. Also, note that I never claimed MS was innovating, simply that IE7 tabs would be superior to those in FF.

--
"The problem with internet quotations is that many are not genuine" -Abraham Lincoln
Re:Preview tab is sweet by minimunchkin · 2006-01-31 07:59 · Score: 1

Not out of the box in Safari, but you might want to check out Shiira. It has the very nice Tab Expose feature and it uses Webkit. It has quite a few little innovations and the tabs are draggable.
Re:Preview tab is sweet by Winterblink · 2006-01-31 08:56 · Score: 1

So, if Firefox decides to include this feature in a future release, then where will IE7 be?

--
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
Re:Preview tab is sweet by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2006-01-31 09:23 · Score: 1

It's not Safari; it's the OmniWeb browser, which has had that feature for years. OmniWeb uses the WebKit framework, so it's also got Safari's standards compliance (so there are actually two browsers that can pass the ACID test--Safari and OmniWeb).

--
"Sufferin' succotash."
Re:Preview tab is sweet by westlake · 2006-01-31 09:48 · Score: 1

if Firefox decides to include this feature in a future release, then where will IE7 be?
where it is now: the default browser on the Windows platform.
80-95% of users, depending on your target audience.
Re:Preview tab is sweet by kyrre · 2006-02-01 03:14 · Score: 1

iCab passed the ACID 2 test before Safari did. iCab is also for OS X (only). It is a pretty good browser.
Re:Preview tab is sweet by mr3038 · 2006-02-01 03:52 · Score: 1
Also, note that I never claimed MS was innovating, simply that IE7 tabs would be superior to those in FF.

Perhaps out of the box but FF has extensions to make it much better. If you digg tabbed browsing, you should check out following extensions (these have overlapping features so you might want to select only a few):
- Showcase
- Reveal
- foXpose
- Tab Catalog
- Tab Sidebar
- Tabnail
- Tab Mix Plus (doesn't display preview but this is a valuable extension for tabbed browsing)
On the other hand, if you don't like tabbed browsing, that's okay too. There's an extension to totally disable tabbed browsing in Firefox.
--
_________________________
Spelling and grammar mistakes left as an exercise for the reader.

What does that GUI remind me of... by Coco+Lopez · 2006-01-31 07:31 · Score: 1

I could swear I've seen those features somewhere before ... damn, can't remember where. But it was a while ago... maybe like a year ago or something. Maybe it was two years. Hmmm. Damn, well anyway --- I can't wait to try out these revolutionary new features.

Re:ACID2 test? Not even close. by Tumbleweed · 2006-01-31 07:33 · Score: 4, Informative

IE7 ACID 2 test screenshot - I just loaded it, and did this screenshot. Not even close, though that shouldn't be a surprise - MS has already said it wouldn't pass the test. FF doesn't pass it either, mind.

Just FYI by GillBates0 · 2006-01-31 07:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

Just because I know a number of you n3rds here will try to see what the IP address that is reported as a "Phishing website" on the penultimate page of the tour is, I already checked. It belongs to MSFT itself.

http://207.68.142.106/contoso/enroll_auth.html
Search ARIN WHOIS for: 207.68.142.106
OrgName: Microsoft Corp
OrgID: MSFT
Address: One Microsoft Way
City: Redmond
StateProv: WA
PostalCode: 98052
Country: US
NetRange: 207.68.128.0 - 207.68.207.255
CIDR: 207.68.128.0/18, 207.68.192.0/20
NetName: MICROSOFT-CORP-MSN-BLK
NetHandle: NET-207-68-128-0-1
Parent: NET-207-0-0-0-0

I always wanted to see Microsoft blacklist itself in one of it's intricate series of patch releases, security alerts, and spam filters. Now my life is complete.

--
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam

Re:Just FYI by rts008 · 2006-01-31 07:52 · Score: 1

"I always wanted to see Microsoft blacklist itself in one of it's intricate series of patch releases, security alerts, and spam filters. Now my life is complete."

LOL!!! BTW, thanks to that comment, I now have to clean the coffee I sprayed while laughing from my keyboard and monitor....you insensitive clod! :)

--
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Re:Just FYI by neildiamond · 2006-01-31 08:36 · Score: 1

That's cool and all, but I'll consider my life complete the day I score with Salma Hayek.

My web doesn't work... :'( by Jugalator · 2006-01-31 07:35 · Score: 1

It looks like Microsoft is trying hard to tell they make the web work for me...

Their struggle is to get a heading on an otherwise mostly empty web page show correctly.

They fail it.

Seriously, if they can't even make a title graphic look right, just fire your webmasters.

My brother knew how to do it cross-platform, when he was 13, a multi-billion dollar company don't?

--
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!

Re:My web doesn't work... :'( by sepelester · 2006-01-31 08:05 · Score: 1

You'd like to check this image out.

The heading you refer to is a gif image. I'm sure your brother can make a gif image look the same on multiple platforms.
Re:My web doesn't work... :'( by Jugalator · 2006-01-31 12:25 · Score: 1

Um.. Look at the page in IE and then tell me it's just the GIF image here that's causing the problem again. The GIF isn't the source of the problem, it's that the background color and more is all messed up.

--
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!

Not joking.. :-P by Henk+Poley · 2006-01-31 07:35 · Score: 1

When running IE7B2P-WindowsXP-x86-enu.exe under Wine 0.9.5 it gives an error message:
"Unable to find a volume for file extraction.
Please verify that you have proper permissions."

from TFWP by Churla · 2006-01-31 07:35 · Score: 1

Internet Explorer 7 Beta 2 Preview will only run on Windows® XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) systems, but will ultimately be available for Windows Vista, Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, and Windows Server 2003.

Does this mean no Win2k support for it?

And how about (just to annoy people) Mac support? heh

--
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore

Re:from TFWP by omeg · 2006-01-31 08:26 · Score: 1

Yes, that's correct. No Windows 9x support, either, which is too bad. A lot of companies that aren't (directly) related to IT are still using old versions of Windows because they don't necessarily need to upgrade. They won't be able to use this new version (although you might wonder whether this could force them to switch to Firefox or Opera once new sites switch to supporting only IE7 and not IE6).

Re:News? by Bogtha · 2006-01-31 07:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

News coverage of when the final release is due is meaningful to users and web developers.

This is the first beta with the rendering engine changes in (CSS fixes, HTML improvements, PNG alpha channel support, etc). And it would be a bit late for web developers to check for compatibility and report bugs after the thing has been released, wouldn't it? No, this is the right time for Slashdot to report this.

--
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha

Re:And now IE 7.0 is by sconeu · 2006-01-31 07:37 · Score: 1

But 7.0 is 6 louder than 1.0!
</SPINAL-TAP;>

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.

pre-install note: forgot to mention a clever thing by Tumbleweed · 2006-01-31 07:38 · Score: 1

The installer runs the Malicious Software Removal Tool before installing IE7 - clever. Too bad they didn't think of that for SP2 for XP; I heard a lot of problems with SP2 were due to that kind of stuff infecting a machine. Let's hope this is a feature that stays around, and spreads to other MS software installs.

But IE and Windowas are Inseperable!! by syntap · 2006-01-31 07:39 · Score: 1

Wow... all of Windows is only 11 MB! I guess the old defense against the monopolistic "binding" issues have gone away.

- My best SIG is this one

Re:But IE and Windowas are Inseperable!! by Malc · 2006-01-31 07:45 · Score: 1

Try using help in any number of applications (MSFT or third-party) with IE uninstalled. Numerous other applications embed the MSHTML browser control or use IE's features in some way. They'll all break without IE. This is one area where Microsoft excel: backwards compatibility. This IE7 upgrade will function in applications from the 1990's.
Re:But IE and Windowas are Inseperable!! by robgamble · 2006-01-31 08:07 · Score: 1

IE 7 completely replaces your IE 6 components, so it's still pretty deeply nested in the bowels of Windows. For Beta 1 there was no provision for uninstall, in fact, and I suspect that hasn't changed (you won't see ME installing it). Hint: Don't install IE7 Beta on a production machine.

--
No sig for you!
Re:But IE and Windowas are Inseperable!! by donutello · 2006-01-31 08:17 · Score: 1

That's not right. I had IE7 Beta 1 and uninstalled it.

--
Mmmm.. Donuts
Re:But IE and Windowas are Inseperable!! by misleb · 2006-01-31 08:49 · Score: 1

To be fair, Apple does much the same thing with their web browser. Although they make some effort to separate the browser front end from the libraries that render the HTML. That is, you don't need Safari, per se. But you do need to have WebKit installed for a lot of things to work. This is how it should be, IMO.

-matthew

--
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Re:But IE and Windowas are Inseperable!! by Malc · 2006-01-31 09:14 · Score: 1

Is it really the same concept under Windows? Really, IE is just another application that embeds the browser control. Perhaps the MSHTML browser control can be viewed as the MS equivalent of Gecko or WebKit? Sorry if I'm being naïve here.
Re:But IE and Windowas are Inseperable!! by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2006-01-31 09:28 · Score: 1

This is one area where Microsoft excel: backwards compatibility.

And the same reason Microsoft Windows is bloated and five years behind everything else. WinFX is just managed code APIs on top of, you guess it, the same Win32 we know and love. Vista is Windows Server 2003 with a pretty layer.

--
"Sufferin' succotash."

Doubt I'll switch back by Pedrito · 2006-01-31 07:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm not fond of upgrading software. Being a software developer, I often don't have a choice. I often have to make sure I'm using the latest of anything that might be work-related and that includes things like Office and other supporting software.

But with something like a web browser, I get a choice. I held off on switching to Firefox. I tried some earlier version and while they had nice features, there were too many issues, I wouldn't switch. Shortly before the 1.0 release, I finally made the switch. The two most compelling features for me were the tabbed browsing and the keyworded bookmarks (which I use ALL the time).

I don't know if IE 7 has the keyworded bookmarks and without it (or something similar), I wouldn't even consider it. But the fact remains that without some compelling new features, I doubt I will switch and from what I've seen so far, there's just nothing like that.

I suspect a lot of regular users are like that. Without a really compelling reason, they won't switch. I suspect IE 7.0 will fail to turn the tide of people switching to Firefox.

Re:Doubt I'll switch back by cosminn · 2006-01-31 11:09 · Score: 1

I suspect IE 7.0 will fail to turn the tide of people switching to Firefox.

You spoke about the reason you switched, and how you're not switching back easily. And that's perfectly true, I feel the same way, but IE7 does have the potential to stop users _from switching_ in the future.

And if they keep the balance the way it is, they'll be happy, at least for now...

Mac version by qwertphobia · 2006-01-31 07:42 · Score: 1

You can download the Mac version here!

Seriously, though, Mac OS and other platorms gaining ground on Windows. And Windows users are tiring of spyware and are switching to other browsers.

Are the developers out there starting to realize that not all users are IE/Windows users? Are developers starting to make their apps and sites browser-agnostic? If so, I'm not seeing much of it.

My browser-agnostic apps are not going IE/Windows only, but my IE/Windows apps aren't going browser-agnostic either.

--
Never ask for directions from a two-headed tourist! -Big Bird

Re:Mac version by one_bad_rover · 2006-01-31 08:36 · Score: 1

Id like to see some real world data to back up the claim that mac or any other OS is gaining anywhere except for in the Ipod world...Linux will never take over Windows, no matter how many people bitch. As a matter of fact, linux networx is so close to being out of business out here its not even funny, gee, and the guys that left are now playing in the windows world. Just cause everyone uses it doesnt make it cool, its like the VW bus, its ugly clunky and unreliable, but some people swear by it still... hey, you can sleep in it, can you do that in your car??

Eh, too little too late by finkployd · 2006-01-31 07:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm using it now to post this comment, and then I'm switching right back. The toolbar is ugly (granted it is beta), and I'm amused that Yahoo is the default search tool over MSN (google of course is not even an option, after all who searches with that?).

Rendering is still sub par, tabs are nice though. All in all, it has a strong "welcome to the cutting edge of web browsing, circa 2003" feel to it. Given that Firefox actually has some momentum now even in corporate America, not to mention joe average who is beginning to draw a connection between spyware and IE, I think MS is going to have to do better than a poor Firefox clone to reverse that trend.

Finkployd

Re:Eh, too little too late by keiichi000 · 2006-01-31 08:00 · Score: 1

Actually, it seems to default to whatever you default search engine is in the Internet control panel. Right now in the copy of IE7b2 I have installed, it says "Search Google" right there in the upper right hand side search bar [Which reminds me of something in MacOS X... hmmm]. So you might try checking what search engines it has information for in the Internet control panel, since you probally only have MSN and Y! Search information there.
Re:Eh, too little too late by misleb · 2006-01-31 09:14 · Score: 1

I'm using it now to post this comment, and then I'm switching right back. The toolbar is ugly (granted it is beta),

Windows is getting gradually more ugly over time. It is like MS is trying WAY too hard to come up with flashy/cool GUI designs. They really need to stick to something. I was all about the simple, mimimalist Win95 design back in the day. Up through Win2k things were OK. And them came XP. What were they thinking with that cheap toy plastic look? Ugh. And what's worse is that it is so inconsisent now. Every other app has to have a slightly different look to it.

Don't get me wrong. I like eye-candy as much as the next guy. OS X's Aqua, for example, looks great. MS is just going about the eye-candy in all the wrong ways.

-matthew

--
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Re:Eh, too little too late by finkployd · 2006-01-31 09:18 · Score: 1

Yeah, I'm with you there. I have some headless XP machines that I will remote desktop into when I need to write a DLL for something (I do a lot of security and digital id work), but I installed and configured them a long time ago. When I set up a XP box for a friend a few weeks ago I was blown away. I had completely forgotten how mind-numbingly ugly the default XP theme is. I have no idea what they were thinking there.

Finkployd

Yawn (why bother?) by BigBuckHunter · 2006-01-31 07:45 · Score: 1

Personally, I am not to excited about this (haven forgotten about MS a while ago). The real question is, who is going to be using this new browser, since reasonable alternatives with better features have been around for over a year. Seriously, who still uses IE (other than 80% of the internet surfing public). Are RSS and tabbed browsing really going to entice people to switch, or is MS going to Masquerade a product release as a "security update"?

BBH

Re:Yawn (why bother?) by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2006-01-31 08:00 · Score: 1

Unfortunatly, still about 1 in 10 websites I visit REQUIRE I.E. access, including my bank. While I would like to use FireFox, for the last 2 years either the bank isn't working to support FireFox, or FireFox isn't working to support the bank. I have even submitted the bank's url to Mozilla as a web page that doesn't work and contacted the bank to let them know I want to use FireFox.

About 3 in 10 websites don't work properly in FireFox, and ANY built in PDF viewing remains hit or miss. Half the time launching a PDF in FireFox results in it crashing.

So, for the mean time, many of use still require to use I.E. as there is no other choice, hopefully I.E. 7.0 will at least make it safe to have to use it in those cases.

--
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Re:Yawn (why bother?) by one_bad_rover · 2006-01-31 08:26 · Score: 1

The majority of the public will use the IE browser, as well as most govt. agencies and large corporations. Thats where the $$ is. The tiny fringe of opera/firefox etc... users who sit and whine about how much it sucks really dont matter. If you are really that tech savvy you would realize this...
Re:Yawn (why bother?) by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2006-01-31 20:31 · Score: 1

Hit them where it hurts. Take your business elsewhere.
I've switched a few things like my electricity supplier, told a car dealership that once they fix their website, I'll consider buying a car from them, but in the meantime, I'm going elsewhere.
The more Firefox users who gravitate to the businesses that support them, the more businesses will make sure their sites work.

ARGH by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-31 07:47 · Score: 1, Insightful

It is not, has not, and never will be funny to make stupid jokes about the "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along." message.

Would you and all others PLEASE STOP DOING THIS ?? You are far more offensive than the GNAA could ever hope to be.

Re:ARGH by Basehart · 2006-01-31 09:15 · Score: 1

Actually, there is one thing worse than "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along".

Anonymous Coward's

Re:News? by MSFanBoi2 · 2006-01-31 07:48 · Score: 1

Why not? Every release of Firefox/Mozilla/Etc. was...

No need to use ACID... by GeekDork · 2006-01-31 07:51 · Score: 1

I can see two problems on my own little page experiment: (1) a div element is extended one element beyond its closing tag, and (2) no support for CSS2.1 :before pseudoclass. Oh, why bother. I'm not paid for that stuff, so fuck IE. The only reason to use it is to get some laughs. It even tagged an Apache2 404 error page as a phishing site.

Beta or not, there's no excuse for that.

--

Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.

Re:No need to use ACID... by slavemowgli · 2006-01-31 07:58 · Score: 1

It even tagged an Apache2 404 error page as a phishing site.

Honi soit qui mal y pense...

--
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Re:No need to use ACID... by Bogtha · 2006-01-31 09:01 · Score: 1

a div element is extended one element beyond its closing tag

That sentence makes no sense. A <div> element is part of the page structure, a tag is part of the syntax, and I can't guess what you mean by "beyond" in this context. One element beyond? What type of element? How is it "extended"? That implies some sort of visual difference, but elements and tags are structure and syntax respectively.

--
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Re:No need to use ACID... by Bert64 · 2006-01-31 09:17 · Score: 1

Thats because Apache is a hacker's webserver, only evil phishing sites run Apache. You should be using IIS!

--
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Re:No need to use ACID... by GeekDork · 2006-01-31 10:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

I mean that properties are somehow leaking out of their context. If you think you know a better way to express it, then don't bicker but say how! It's like this:

<div class="c1"> ... </div> <div class="c1"> <h1>Heading</h1> </div>

The h1 is displayed with the preceding div's CSS properties. The page in question validates with the W3C validator and is displayed as intended by Firefox, Opera and Konqueror.

--
Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.
Re:No need to use ACID... by GeekDork · 2006-01-31 10:07 · Score: 1

Damn cut&paste. The h1 is inside a div with a different class.

--
Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.
Re:No need to use ACID... by Bogtha · 2006-02-01 06:04 · Score: 1

If you think you know a better way to express it, then don't bicker but say how!

I honestly couldn't understand what you were saying. And I can't reproduce this bug when they are different classes. Got a link to a test-case?

--
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Re:No need to use ACID... by GeekDork · 2006-02-02 00:58 · Score: 1

Try this page. Firefox et al. give the intended result, with the grey box only around the "Menu / Menu entry" lines and the Heading line on white background with a grey border at its bottom. The IE7 beta extends the grey background to the first heading.

This seems to be the result of an "empty" div element with only a newline in it (lines 18/19 in the page source), which is inside the block with the dark background color. If its not there, at least that looks fine.

--
Fight hunger. Filet a politician and send him to a 3rd world country of your choice.

Choose your own search engine. by AnotherDaveB · 2006-01-31 07:54 · Score: 1

Just going through the features tour IE7 appears to have a preference pane for the search box, you can easily choose which search engine to use yourself. I think this is a great idea. I requested the same thing of Apple/Safari through their feedback mechanism, but nothing ever came of it - I'm british so I would rather use google.co.uk or uk.yahoo.com than the google.com that Safari defaults to.

I only use IE6 for compatibility testing at the moment (via Virtual PC) it has a really annoying habit of requiring the 'http://' prefix to urls in the address bar, or sending you to search.msn.com, while other browsers will accept 'www.slashdot.org' and add the prefix themselves. I hope this is changed in IE7 as my next machine will almost certainly be one of HP's Ubuntu laptops which will be set to dual boot with XP.

Camino still has the prettiest buttons :-)

Re:Choose your own search engine. by Bogtha · 2006-01-31 08:50 · Score: 1

Internet Explorer 7 will support OpenSearch 1.1, which is an XML document describing how an application can use a search engine.

--
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Re:Choose your own search engine. by tsaler · 2006-01-31 09:03 · Score: 1

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who would like a simple customization of the search engine box in Safari (or at least a way to get rid of it entirely if they won't let me use something other than Google).
Re:Choose your own search engine. by AnotherDaveB · 2006-01-31 09:29 · Score: 1

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who would like a simple customization of the search engine box in Safari (or at least a way to get rid of it entirely if they won't let me use something other than Google).

Funnily enough, getting rid of it entirely is even more annoying. :-)
I deleted the search box in FF and I find it's absense, when I use FF, grates a bit. With Safari I find myself adding "site:.uk" to my searches where necessary. But the IE7 feature looks great, and I hope the Safari team copy it.
Re:Choose your own search engine. by akhomerun · 2006-01-31 09:36 · Score: 1

in IE, if you choose in advanced settings to never search for web pages from the address bar, it will add the HTTP for you
Re:Choose your own search engine. by AnotherDaveB · 2006-01-31 09:46 · Score: 1

Internet Explorer 7 will support OpenSearch 1.1, which is an XML document describing how an application can use a search engine.

Ah, thanks for the info. I followed your link and this seems to be a really clever and useful application of RSS. I hope other browser's consider following IE7's lead here.
Re:Choose your own search engine. by AnotherDaveB · 2006-01-31 09:51 · Score: 1

in IE, if you choose in advanced settings to never search for web pages from the address bar, it will add the HTTP for you

Thanks!

How to bypass the WGA (really) by acariquara · 2006-01-31 08:01 · Score: 4, Informative

1. Get the hacked iecustom.dll (google for it)
2. Download the beta. DO NOT RUN IT
3. Using WinRAR or 7Zip, unpack the executable (right click it)
4. Go to the "update" subfolder
5. Replace iecustom.dll with hacked one
6. Run UPDATE.EXE (not setup.exe)

done.

--
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all

Re:How to bypass the WGA (really) by delus10n0 · 2006-01-31 11:23 · Score: 1

Or you could just use the "Manage Add-ins" section in XP SP2 to disable the validation active-x control, and it will let you pass through anyhow..

Or ya know, just buy a copy of XP.

--
Not All Who Wander Are Lost

Re:FireFox by JPQuiceno · 2006-01-31 08:05 · Score: 1

Does Microsoft even try? It's almost a 1:1 verbatim copy of Firefox. Burnnnnn....

Re:beta by Zantetsuken · 2006-01-31 08:05 · Score: 1

which is why (besides that I would never switch back to IE anyway) I wouldnt use IE7 for at least a year or so to give em enough time to get a minimum of (30% a low enough number for M$). Try it on the initial release, and you'll fry your system in 30 seconds (or will IE let spyware do it quicker?)

Stand alone version? by StonedRat · 2006-01-31 08:09 · Score: 1

Is there a stand alone version? How are people ment to test their site in IE6 and IE7 if there's no stand alone version of IE7?

--
"Religion is the most malevolent of all mind viruses." - Arthur C. Clarke.

Re:Stand alone version? by Tumbleweed · 2006-01-31 08:30 · Score: 1

Is there a stand alone version? How are people ment to test their site in IE6 and IE7 if there's no stand alone version of IE7?

You're not too familiar with this "Microsoft," are you? :)
Re:Stand alone version? by pelayo · 2006-01-31 12:28 · Score: 1

That's really easy, simply don't install, only extract with winrar or similar, and create an empty file called iexplore.exe.local. The iexplore.exe will then search for it's files on the local (extracted) folder instead of system's ones. But some features would not work I think, like the anti-phishing stuff. Still, nice for page rendering tests.

Why should MS care? by mmalove · 2006-01-31 08:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

The internet browser is free. MS makes no money on it. What is their motivation to put out a new version of IE as opposed to something like say, MS Office, where they make 100-300 bucks a pop on it?

Or a new OS?

--
You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.

Re:Why should MS care? by meringuoid · 2006-01-31 08:46 · Score: 1

What is their motivation to put out a new version of IE as opposed to something like say, MS Office, where they make 100-300 bucks a pop on it?
Not much, which is why they've not released a new version in so long. But the current version of IE is obsolete, has an appalling reputation for security, and is causing significant numbers of people to switch to Firefox and Opera, which are, at present, vastly superior. If people get into the habit of trying out alternatives to MS software, discover how much better they are... what OTHER MS software might they try out alternatives to?
They've got to maintain the monopoly mindset where everything on the computer is Microsoft, and Joe Average never even has any idea that there are alternatives that might be desirable.

--
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Re:Why should MS care? by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2006-01-31 09:31 · Score: 1

For the last five years, they had no motivation for the reasons you listed, so IE stagnated. Now, the motivation is to update the browser to support Avalon and .NET apps, which will be Microsoft's new attempt to make the web platform-dependent on Windows, just like ActiveX.

--
"Sufferin' succotash."
Re:Why should MS care? by Cro+Magnon · 2006-01-31 10:10 · Score: 1

Exactly. It's easier to convince someone to switch from Windows to a different OS if they're already using Firefox & Open Office. It's more intimidating to switch OS AND apps at the same time.

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Re:Why should MS care? by AnotherDaveB · 2006-01-31 10:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

MS makes no money on it. What is their motivation to put out a new version of IE as opposed to something like say, MS Office, where they make 100-300 bucks a pop on it?

It's easier to develop for browsers that follow the w3c dom/html/css standards. IE6 has a number of weird bugs that make it a pain.

I think MS is more concerned that corporate intranets might start developing for FF rather than IE6, than any perception among the general public that IE6 a poor quality product.

Actually, it's rather pretty by icebrrrg · 2006-01-31 08:09 · Score: 1

Their UI designers have done a good job desiging the browser shell itself. Things are where I need them to be, and the default skin is something brand new from MS. I'm enjoying it so far (tho it won't replace FireFox as my default browser). It's a long-overdue step in the right direction.

--
nothing worth possessing isn't possessed. or something.

Ouch by cinderful · 2006-01-31 08:10 · Score: 1

The site wasn't an internal Microsoft site.
It was done by a larger outside design company who specializes in web

Fixed attribute by mla_anderson · 2006-01-31 08:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

Still no concept of position: fixed in IE7. Ugh.

--
Sig is on vacation

Re:Fixed attribute by eggz128 · 2006-01-31 10:01 · Score: 3, Informative

Are you sure? The original Complex Spiral works for me.
Re:Fixed attribute by ccvqc · 2006-01-31 14:55 · Score: 1

Not totally true. I have a web page with a fixed position nav bar that now displays correctly pinned in place.

But I also have a bigger page that uses fixed positioning that's totally broken; doesn't display most of the page content at all.

I'm talking validated xhtml1.1 with proper doctype and CSS2.1 here.

Just to confirm, IE6 is gone? by nobodyman · 2006-01-31 08:12 · Score: 1

Okay, quick check to see if IE6 is still on here...aaaannddd...of course not. Fuckers.

That ain't good. Does IE7beta actually wipe out IE6, or does it simply make IE7 the default?

Though we are allowed to install multple browsers, my employer mandates that all intranet web apps work in IE6 at minimum. It would be nice to install IE7 and prepare our apps for any upcoming changes, but if I can't ensure that any changes won't break our IE6 functionality then it's a show-stopper. I imagine this is the case for a number of web developers. Ostensibly this beta release targets the development community so it baffling that Microsoft would make such a decision.

And besides that - what kind of idiot has their *beta* installation overwrite a *production* installation?? (rhetorical question)

Re:Just to confirm, IE6 is gone? by nobodyman · 2006-01-31 09:18 · Score: 1

It's good to know you can rollback, but ideally you'd be able to use both versions simultaneously. As an end-user I imagine there wouldn't be much demand for this, but for a web developer (whom this release was targeted towards) it would be very, very handy.
Re:Just to confirm, IE6 is gone? by delus10n0 · 2006-01-31 11:21 · Score: 1

I keep hearing bitching about this, but they tell you right in the release notes that it will "overwrite" IE6.

Also, to the people complaining about not being able to install it on the same machine with IE6.. don't you "developers" have MSDN licenses (or copies of Virtual PC?) Or surely you can afford a spare machine and/or copy of Windows XP around the office to do your testing on? Do you routinely put betas on your workstation? Pfft.

--
Not All Who Wander Are Lost
Re:Just to confirm, IE6 is gone? by nobodyman · 2006-01-31 11:37 · Score: 1

True, but I think that part of the Justice Department's stipulations to MS was that they had to decouple the browser from the rest of the OS (e.g. the desktop integration). In addition, there are websites out there that host prior versions of IE which you can run on your box along with the latest version, so it's possible.
I think this is a decision on Microsoft's part to limit the number of configurations that they'd have to troubleshoot, rather than because of some technical limitation. I don't even have any beef with that decision, but my larger point is that microsoft's target audience with this release is web developers and early adopters - and the 7.0 beta is "unsupported" by official tech support channels anyway. So they'll maximize their target audience by allowing dual versions. As long as it's techinically possible (which is the case with prior versions), why not allow it?
Re:Just to confirm, IE6 is gone? by dhasenan · 2006-01-31 14:44 · Score: 1

Why should I have to replace IE6 on my testing box and then return it afterwards just to test a beta web browser? I sure as hell can't waste an entire box to test IE7, even if it's only for a day; and a single day of tests would be insufficient.

Still, testing beta web browsers isn't something you should be doing at work anyway.
Re:Just to confirm, IE6 is gone? by delus10n0 · 2006-01-31 15:22 · Score: 1

There's always Virtual PC..

--
Not All Who Wander Are Lost
Re:Just to confirm, IE6 is gone? by NoMoreNicksLeft · 2006-01-31 22:24 · Score: 1

It's part of the OS. You don't expect to be able to run win95 and XP on the same machine simultaneously, do you? You should ask yourself why you bother coding pages for OS subcomponents rather than actual web browsers, they do call them web pages for a reason, you know.

Re:ACID2 test? Not even close. by bahamat · 2006-01-31 08:14 · Score: 3, Informative

For comparison purposes, here are also:

The reference rendering.
Safari rendering I captured with Grab.

Now with Improved Privacy Rights! by WillAffleckUW · 2006-01-31 08:17 · Score: 1

Except in China, the United States of America, and other countries which spy on their citizens illegally.

But, don't worry, under opt-out DRM that you already agreed to by clicking on Install, you have agreed to have your browsing history, email use, and home searches and occupations by military personnel as part of your Default Rights.

Enjoy, Citizen!

Trust the Computer: The Computer Is Your Friend!
No electrons were harmed in this posting, but if they were, they were cheerfully complying with Directive THX-1984.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

Re:Now with Improved Privacy Rights! by AnotherDaveB · 2006-01-31 08:47 · Score: 1

Except in China, the United States of America, and other countries which spy on their citizens illegally

Most governments, including China, USA and my country, the UK spy on their citizens. Within the laws of these countries, this is legal.

Your confusion is perhaps with the current USA / NSA story where, while the Bush administration could and can legally spy on USA citizens, they chose to ignore the existing law and act, as I understand it, illegally. But it was their method that was illegal, not the concept on spying on their own citizens.
Re:Now with Improved Privacy Rights! by WillAffleckUW · 2006-01-31 09:40 · Score: 1

Most governments, including China, USA and my country, the UK spy on their citizens. Within the laws of these countries, this is legal.

I believe I never said it wasn't legal.

It's fairly easy to get sheep to pass a law to ignore the wolves reducing their numbers - or to not permit the media to report how many sheep are eaten by wolves.

But the sheep still get eaten.

And it's not a wise thing to do.

Unless you're a wolf.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Re:Now with Improved Privacy Rights! by AnotherDaveB · 2006-01-31 10:37 · Score: 1

believe I never said it wasn't legal.

You said

Now with Improved Privacy Rights! ... Except in China, the United States of America, and other countries which spy on their citizens illegally

and I inferred you believed gov'ts spying their citizens to be illegal. My mistake. Sorry.

As to the wisdom of it... we are surely obliged to trust to the good intentions of our elected representatives, and to watch the buggers!
Re:Now with Improved Privacy Rights! by WillAffleckUW · 2006-01-31 10:51 · Score: 1

As to the wisdom of it... we are surely obliged to trust to the good intentions of our elected representatives, and to watch the buggers!

Not sure if that's enough. In today's Wall Street Journal, they pointed out that many anti-privacy advocates count on us trusting them to work for our good, and use that intentionally against us.

However, since the IE7 beta includes the Google search, we have a mixed level of privacy indications. It's more likely media attention that will impact that.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

Browser is the Operating System by Aesiq · 2006-01-31 08:17 · Score: 2, Funny

Did Microsoft go out if its way to make sure we all knew that the browser was an integral and non-seperable part of the operating system just so it couldn't be "extra" sued by the U.S. government? Does this mean this is a beta of Vista for free download?!

Awesome!

Configure Clear Type properly by yotaku · 2006-01-31 08:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

Everyone's eyes have different sesitivities to different light wavelengths. Since cleartype uses different colors with the layout of the colored pixels of your monitor, it should be configured for each monitor and user to provide the best results.

Link to online cleartype calibration site:
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/cleartype/tune r/Step1.aspx

Re:Configure Clear Type properly by Tumbleweed · 2006-01-31 08:27 · Score: 1

Subpixels do not exist on CRT monitors, FYI.
Re:Configure Clear Type properly by yotaku · 2006-01-31 08:38 · Score: 1

Yes, but ClearType can still help some. Obviously it is not as good, but for some people it is better than having it off.
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ClearTypeFAQ.m spx
Re:Configure Clear Type properly by TeknoHog · 2006-01-31 11:15 · Score: 1

Subpixels do not exist on CRT monitors, FYI.
Yes they do. The little bits of R, G and B are there as constituents of the colors you see.
The difference is that the arrangement of subpixels within a pixel is not as well defined in CRTs as in LCDs. An LCD has one of each color in a pixel, usually in the RGB layout from left to right, though not always. In CRTs there are usually more than one piece of each color component per pixel, and there's no consensus as to their arrangement across different makes and models of monitor. Therefore something like Cleartype (and whatever they call it in X11/Xft) is much harder to do, and has fewer benefits.

--
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Re:Configure Clear Type properly by Trepalium · 2006-01-31 14:08 · Score: 1

ClearType works with LCDs because there are extremely well defined pixels (which is also why you don't want to run LCD panels at non-native resolutions), so breaking them into subpixels is easy. On a CRT, each phosphor isn't associated with a single pixel, so using subpixels on that kind of screen is basically useless (it turns into antialiasing with a color fringe on each side).
Frankly, I can't stand ClearType even on LCD panels. While it makes large fonts clearer, it just blurs smaller fonts, and appears to make them shrink even smaller. I can tweak Xft to exclude whatever point-size range I want from subpixel rendering, but I can't do it with ClearType. To make matters worse, ClearType often fails to position horizontal and vertical lines on pixel boundaries, so you end up with blurry Is, ls, Ts, etc even on LCD panels.

--
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.

Re:Save yourself some trouble by pmike_bauer · 2006-01-31 08:30 · Score: 1

It won't even install on XP SP1. It seems to require SP2.

--
I read /. for the (Score:-1, Conservative) comments.

Important IE7 "gotcha" by saboola · 2006-01-31 08:31 · Score: 1

In order to remove it under Add/Remove programs you have to check off the box "Show Updates". If you are like me and have a lot of ActiveX functions that need to be run, then you will find this piece of advice most helpful since it pretty much breaks everything.

search engines - Google integration by pdschmid · 2006-01-31 08:31 · Score: 1

I just installed beta 2 (on XP) and I am surprised that Google is my default search engine! The only other one installed is MSN. I had the Google toolbar installed in 6, and it is right there in 7 as well. All of it works perfectly. It seems as though MS has addressed the concerns in earlier versions.
The list of search engine providers includes AOL, Ask Jeeves, Google, MSN and Yahoo. There are also providers for specific websites, e.g. amazon and MSDN. Looks pretty good!

I think... by sheepoo · 2006-01-31 08:34 · Score: 1

It is too bloated
The interface is clanky
There is nothing new other than the Phishing Filter

Just my 2cents

Re:I think... by one_bad_rover · 2006-01-31 09:20 · Score: 1

there is a lot different under the covers... as in, if you were being monitored, using IE7, your actions would not be captured.

Looks like Safari to me by zlogic · 2006-01-31 08:34 · Score: 1

It looks pretty much like Safari to me:
- address bar on on top, Search next to it
- no menu (because it's not needed in Mac OS)
- back/forward buttons in a tight group next to address bar, no stop button

Gotta love oxymorons by cyber-vandal · 2006-01-31 08:35 · Score: 1

No text required :P

Transparent PNG? by Helmholtz · 2006-01-31 08:36 · Score: 1

Does IE7 support transparent PNGs yet? I still have a webpage up out there that has to you a _very_ nasty CSS img tag hack to rerender transparent PNGs using the Windows alpha channel if the visitor is using IE.

While IE7 doesn't mean I'd get to remove the hack anytime soon, at least it'd be a light at the end of the tunnel.

--
RFC2119

Re:Transparent PNG? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-31 13:22 · Score: 1, Informative

Gamma handling is as wrong as ever, though. You must use gamma=1/1.96 to match other gamma-less images, html colors, etc. In a correct implementation, gamma=1/2.2 would match.

warning: IE7 appears to kill IE6 by gravyface · 2006-01-31 08:37 · Score: 1

For a beta, you'd think it would leave IE6 alone. I was curious as to wear it was installed (I couldn't see any new icons on the desktop, etc.) and checked c:\program files\Internet Explorer and noticed that iexplore.exe had been modified, along with everything else. Seeing how I rely on IE6 for testing purposes, this is going to fun to uninstall/restore IE6. Serves me write for installing it on my work desktop. :/

--
body massage!

Re:warning: IE7 appears to kill IE6 by Bungopolis · 2006-01-31 08:59 · Score: 1

From http://msdn.microsoft.com/ie/releasenotes/default. aspx

To uninstall Internet Explorer 7 Beta 2 Preview and return to Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
* Click "Start," and then click "Control Panel."
* Click "Add or Remove Programs."
* Check "Show Updates" at the top of the dialog box.
* Scroll down the list to "Windows XP - Software Updates," select "Internet Explorer 7 Beta 2Preview," and then click "Change/Remove."

If "Internet Explorer 7 Beta 2 Preview" does not exist, run %windir%\$NtUninstallie7bet2p$\spuninst\spuninst.e xe. You need to have "view hidden folders" enabled.
Re:warning: IE7 appears to kill IE6 by griffindj · 2006-01-31 09:21 · Score: 1

Uhhhhhhhh, yeeeeeeeeeeeah.... Doesn't work for me. There is no IE7 Beta Preview or such in Windows XP - Software Updates..., at least for me. And I do believe I'm looking in the right place. And get this... System Restore doesn't work either. And even using "uninstall windows components" and "removing internet explorer" does not work, because it never really does uninstall IE (it rather hides it). Running a V6 setup does not work because it says a newer version is installed and explains how to remove it via the way you suggested. Do yourself a favor and wait until the production release comes out. Heres to repairing my windows partition.
Re:warning: IE7 appears to kill IE6 by Bungopolis · 2006-01-31 09:29 · Score: 1

Did you make sure to check "Show updates" in the upper right corner of the "Add or Remove Programs" dialogue? Internet Explorer 7 beta 2 was at the bottom of the update list that appears for me. If it still doesn't appear, try doing what Microsoft suggests in this situation and running: %windir%\$NtUninstallie7bet2p$\spuninst\spuninst.e xe
Re:warning: IE7 appears to kill IE6 by griffindj · 2006-01-31 09:45 · Score: 1

thanks for the reply, i love turning slashdot into a support forum

I did have the check box checked. I followed all the instructions to the T. Bottom line, something was muffed up because I was getting a lot of javascript errors for no reason, most noticebly on the "start up page" where it asked me to choose my language. I'd click save settings and it would say... "thank you come again" (not really, it said done loading but with errors [equally useless]).

Sooooo... as a last ditched effort I found some tip on removing IE7 by cutting the IE Programs folder to another destination and letting the install recopy those files. This solved the "version already installed error" The install copied over the files and after a restart I had a fully functioning version of IE 7 beta. Funny thing is now I'm able to remove it the way Microsoft suggested, and that's exactly what I'm doing.

Go figure, 10 minutes of playing with a broken IE7 and 90 minutes trying to get back to a working version. Talk about being productive.
Re:warning: IE7 appears to kill IE6 by gravyface · 2006-01-31 16:44 · Score: 1

Yeah, add/remove worked fine. Thanks for the heads up. I wasn't expecting a beta preview to nestle itself in as the default Internet Explorer on my system, which is why I was trying to warn others. As for the app itself, it looks like its using a different font smoothing effect -- compare Times New Roman used for body text in Slashdot as an example. Has a "PDF'ed" look to it.

--
body massage!

Re:I tried to install the IE7 beta by WillAffleckUW · 2006-01-31 08:38 · Score: 1

Oh, and where is the source code - I can't seem to find it anywhere

Look in the /windows/temp directory ...

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

Microsoft Firefox by dTox · 2006-01-31 08:38 · Score: 1

Is it just me or does that look familiar. I'm pretty sure it's just Firefox with a theme and the following extensions:

Firefox Showcase 0.5.5
Compact Menu 1.7.2
Security Holes 0.9.1

Re:Microsoft Firefox by j.bellone · 2006-01-31 10:08 · Score: 1
You didn't include:
- Bloated Memory Hog 1.5.31
--
I'm f#$king magic!
Re:Microsoft Firefox by dTox · 2006-02-01 02:27 · Score: 1
But Firefox already includes:
- Leaky Memory 1.5
Re:Microsoft Firefox by j.bellone · 2006-02-01 09:10 · Score: 1

I was talking about Firefox. ;)

--
I'm f#$king magic!

Re:ACID2 test? Not even close. by ueoasnth · 2006-01-31 08:41 · Score: 1

The face on that IE7 screenshot looks much like a pig.

Maybe Microsoft is making a statement...?

Is this for real? by rilister · 2006-01-31 08:46 · Score: 1

Are these controls always at the far right of the screen?
So the menus will always open backwards?

http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow_viewer/0,1205,l=&s= 1712&a=170269&po=6,00.asp

Tell me it ain't so! (Can't install the beta, can't check it out myself)

--
'This writing business. Pencils and what-not. Over-rated if you ask me. Silly stuff. Nothing in it' - Eeyore

Re:how fitting by Yocto+Yotta · 2006-01-31 08:47 · Score: 1

You must not work in an industry (telecommunications for example) that uses a bunch of shitty-written IE only web "applications" that benefit from tabs. I'm all about the Fox, but this is a FSM-send.

--
A B A C A B B

Re:Ad blocker? Not true by cabinetsoft · 2006-01-31 08:55 · Score: 1

rumoured upcoming graphics/flash ads

Well, they aren't "rumoured"... The google banner ads exist for quite some time... still not as popular for advertisers. Depending on your the content of the site setting google ad blocks to display only banner ads will either work or just deliver nothing. Anyway just check here to see a few of them down bellow the page.

Wake me up when... by Dracos · 2006-01-31 09:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

These things are fixed:

Box Model
Float Model
PNG transparency
position: fixed
Well, CSS in general
Event Model
DOM support
Mime type: application/xml+html
Mixed namespace documents

Which basically begs the question, "Will IE ever 100% support any standard?" Sadly, the answer is probably not. IE doesn't even fully support HTML 3.2.

Re:Wake me up when... by dreemernj · 2006-01-31 16:24 · Score: 1

Yeah, I doubt it'd ever 100% support a standard. Can't say as I blame them though. When a for-profit company controls the vast majority of the market, I wouldn't really expect them to change their own design goals to match rules laid down by outside parties.

--
1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
Re:Wake me up when... by RzUpAnmsCwrds · 2006-01-31 19:11 · Score: 1

Box Model
Most of the quirksmode bugs are fixed, and while the box model still leaves a lot to be desired, it is, on the whole, a lot better
Float Model
Again, not 100%, but much closer.
PNG transparency
Fixed
position: fixed
Also fixed
Mime type: application/xml+html
Explicitly not fixed. The argument is that you shouldn't be rendering XHTML served with application/xml+html with an HTML parser anyway. It's a semantic thing anyway, no one is going to go bananas because they have to use text/html. Well, no one except W3 zealots.

Default Search engine by sleepophile · 2006-01-31 09:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

The biggest surprise for me was that the default search engine in the search box was google and not MSN search!Pretty strange considering how much MS hates google...

Re:Default Search engine by mschuyler · 2006-01-31 09:38 · Score: 1

Not my experience. MSN was the default. I had to manually change to Google.

--
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.

RSS feed by kc0re · 2006-01-31 09:23 · Score: 1

I see everyone has overlooked something grossly disgusting.

The new RSS reader looks EXACTLY like Safari (although Safari's is better looking thank god) but the way it renders RSS!? It's exactly the same! Apple, Go sue.

SP2 Required by the_bahua · 2006-01-31 09:30 · Score: 1

This requires that XP Service Pack 2 be installed, it seems.

Re:ACID2 test? Not even close. by Psykechan · 2006-01-31 09:32 · Score: 1

Stupid question, but why did you use Grab?

You can capture the screen in OS X with Command-Shift-3 or a portion with Command-Shift-4.

Can't Try TFA, but... by ursabear · 2006-01-31 09:35 · Score: 1

It is interesting that Microsoft has reignited this application at all. Microsoft crushed many browsers via bundled ubiquity, then pretty much stopped innovating or working it in a meaningful way.

Sincerely, I wish they would make it standards-compliant: there is a lot of wasted brain-work going on out there to constantly program-around-and-compensate-for weak implementations of important standards.

I think I'm sticking with Firefox and SeaMonkey on my Win32 machines.

--
A Passionate Independent Musician

"QuickTabs" looks good by sootman · 2006-01-31 09:35 · Score: 2, Informative

The tour shows a feature called "QuickTabs" that looks good. If I'm correct, it looks like Expose for your tabs--shows thumbnails of all open tabs. Shiira for OS X has this and it's great--something every browser should have.

--
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.

Firefox by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2006-01-31 09:37 · Score: 1

Are you a Firefox user? I've got access to 5000+ search engines. If a site with a search engine isn't listed at http://mycroft.mozdev.org/, then it's probably your own.

Re:pre-install note: forgot to mention a clever th by Rolan · 2006-01-31 09:37 · Score: 1

SP2 Came out in August of 04, the MSRT didn't come out until January 05. I suspect they will use it, when SP3 eventually comes out.

--
- AMW

Re:ACID2 test? Not even close. by brunson · 2006-01-31 09:42 · Score: 1

IE7 doesn't render http://www.mozilla.org/ correctly. The monitor on the RHS keeps moving around independent of the image on the screen when you refresh.

--
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
Jesus loves you, I think you suck

Re:Dream Words by mschuyler · 2006-01-31 09:42 · Score: 1

Nope. I tried a "d" and just got Drudge Report ( a fair hit)

--
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.

Re:Firefox by pdschmid · 2006-01-31 09:46 · Score: 1

Yes, I am a FireFox user. I am actually not particularly concerned about the breadth of search engines available to FF or IE7. However, there was a controversy with earlier versions of IE7 in which Google was missing from the search box (yet MSN, Yahoo were there), and the Google Toolbar wasn't working.

Re:ACID2 test? Not even close. by PhoenixPath · 2006-01-31 10:00 · Score: 1

1.5.0.1 (Firefox) Seems to render it just dandy.

Re:pre-install note: forgot to mention a clever th by Tumbleweed · 2006-01-31 10:04 · Score: 1

SP2 Came out in August of 04, the MSRT didn't come out until January 05. I suspect they will use it, when SP3 eventually comes out.

Good point, but MS should've had anti-adware and anti-virus stuff long ago.

Crashes on startup... by blork101 · 2006-01-31 10:17 · Score: 1

After trying out the earlier beta, and being disappointed, I thought I'd give this one a go. When I try to run it, my desktop icons flash (you know, like it's being refreshed), and IE7 fails to start up; a window appears for a couple o' milliseconds but then nothing. Trying to open a HTML file with it gains no more success, I'm just told the file doesn't exist (I know it does). I haven't used any form of IE for quite some time, so this could have been happening with IE6, but still, can anyone help?

Now, MS, fix this... by Admiral+Justin · 2006-01-31 10:24 · Score: 1

Am I the only one who noticed this?
http://img489.imageshack.us/img489/6596/msbadalias 2ke.png Let's try good aliasing before you make graphics for your products...

--
You will be baked, and there will be cake.

Re:ACID2 test? Not even close. by diegocgteleline.es · 2006-01-31 10:25 · Score: 1

Firefox is quite near of passing it, however

I mean, this looks much better than IE

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28948 0 for the bug

Re:ACID2 test? Not even close. by Webz · 2006-01-31 10:26 · Score: 1

Do you have a screenshot to back up that claim?

It hates live mail beta by griffinme · 2006-01-31 11:03 · Score: 1

Two things I thought were interesting. 1. This is version 7.0.5296.0 the version that was leaked on the internet the other day was 7.0..5299.0 2. It hates Live Mail beta. Which surprising to me since this is the public beta. Funny part is that Live Mail seems to like Firefox better. Most of the features are missing but at least you can use it.

--
Is he strong? Listen bud, He's got radioactive blood.

Re:Ad blocker? Not true by Tumbleweed · 2006-01-31 11:10 · Score: 1

Interesting. Okay, IE7 shows those graphical ones, as well.

Search Plugins - Firefox compatible? by otisg · 2006-01-31 11:11 · Score: 1

Are they?
Or will developers have to write another version, just for IE7 users?

--
Simpy

Yes, but... by thegnu · 2006-01-31 12:25 · Score: 1

does it run on, in, or around Linux? Does Linux run on IT? THEN WHY SHOULD I CARE?

I'm sorry... I had to say it.

--
Please stop stalking me, bro.

Re:ACID2 test? Not even close. by GWBasic · 2006-01-31 13:22 · Score: 1

The acid test isn't really considered a good test for complience, which is why the IE team doesn't care too much about it. It uses malformed CSS and doesn't really test the important parts of CSS.

--
No, I will not work for your startup

and? by frodoze · 2006-01-31 13:27 · Score: 1

so what, I refuse to use IE in any form, even if this was provided in the next version of winblows I would still cripple and remove it as far as possible from the system.

Self Signed Certificates Forbidden by retsamxaw · 2006-01-31 13:29 · Score: 1

Sites with self-signed security certificates are blocked for the unenlightened. Having to pay extortion to a 3rd party to "verify" your identity does nothing to protect the good guys and does little to stop the bad guys.

This won't cost the "big guys" any hard-earned money, but it will likely hurt small ecommerce vendors a great deal. An extra $100-$200 per year is not nothing. The default IE6 settings were fine - a warning - same as FF.

I always thought the "phishing" schemes which they spend so much time discussing are things like https://login.ebay.com.givemeyourcreditcard.com/ - or even http://login.ebay.com.givemeyourunsecurecreditcard .com/

Unenlightened designers will likely advise small clients to go without a certificate altogether. I hope this doesn't make it into the final build, but we'll see.

--
Spiritual Leader of Green Bay Net

Re:ACID2 test? Not even close. by Tumbleweed · 2006-01-31 13:30 · Score: 1

The acid test isn't really considered a good test for complience, which is why the IE team doesn't care too much about it. It uses malformed CSS and doesn't really test the important parts of CSS.

Yeah, I'm sure that's the reason why. :)

Build Number by code65536 · 2006-01-31 13:44 · Score: 1

Haven't installed it yet (because it asks me to uninstall previous IE7 builds), but from the version information in the executable, this appears to be build #5296. The build in the IE7 leak story from a week ago is #5299... I remember seeing some talk about #5296 on one of the sites discussing #5299 last week, so this is a build that has been around a bit now (which is expected, of course).

Oh, is IE open-source now? by ylikone · 2006-01-31 13:47 · Score: 1

What? No!? Well, then I guess your "blows FF out of the water" comment is a bit .... WRONG! Heck, I can't even run IE because I run Linux! But yet, Windows users can run FF! What kind of crappy product is IE?

--
Meh.

Re:ACID2 test? Not even close. by Lisandro · 2006-01-31 13:58 · Score: 1

Firefox 1.0.7 renders it just dandy. So does Opera 8.51, both on Linux-x86.

Re:ACID2 test? Not even close. by miro+f · 2006-01-31 14:07 · Score: 1

the safari rendering means nothing because they simply implemented whatever Acid2 tested properly, it doesn't show anything about their standards compliance except for what was specifically tested. The original rendering when Acid2 just came out gives us more information (until an Acid3 is released)

--
being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...

Re:ACID2 test? Not even close. by MaWeiTao · 2006-01-31 14:53 · Score: 1

I've yet to see any of the browsers I use render that properly, including Explorer, Firefox and Safari. Firefox does a better job than Explorer and Safari might have been the best of the three. But what does it matter when Safari screws up sites that show up fine on the other browsers. The fact that one test shows displays properly ends up being a bit irrelevant.

So much for standards. The problem is that everyone wants their own "standard" to be the standard.

Re:ACID2 test? Not even close. by slyborg · 2006-01-31 14:58 · Score: 1

It demonstrates that Safari passes a test corpus, and the other guys didn't; regardless of how completely the test covers the standard in question, the fact that others don't pass it strongly suggests that they probably are not *more* compliant. Even if the Safari team coded specifically to pass the test set, the fact that they did this suggests that they are at least as interested - and since they do it right - arguably *more* interested in being compliant.

Your last sentence doesn't really parse in English, but since it also doesn't gives us more information on your observations on standards compliance, we'll have to take your word on that (until an further reply is released) ;)

Re:ACID2 test? Not even close. by Tumbleweed · 2006-01-31 15:37 · Score: 1

Opera 8.5 renders it very well, though not perfectly. I'm sure Opera 9 (beta) gets even closer, if not passes it. I've heard the current builds of FF (1.5.01?) pass it, though I don't know for sure.

You can't always blame non-IE browsers 'display problems' on the browser - too many sites still serve up crap when they detect a non-IE browser (particularly a problem for Opera).

This IE7 preview did better than I thought it would. I have a range of web sites I created to test it with, and it works on "tag soup" sites, outer table layout with CSS styling sites, and all-CSS sites. I didn't use any CSS hacks with any of my sites, so no idea how that'll work out. But, you use the hacks, you pays the price. *shrug*

My take by astrosmash · 2006-01-31 16:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

The Good:

They haven't tried to reinvent the wheel with respect to tabbed browsing and search. They got it mostly right. As a Firefox and Safari user I generally feel at home using IE 7, which is a pleasent surprise.
I like the placement of the new-tab button and close-tab buttons. (Better than Firefox)
Clicking on a web page's orange XML icon brings up an RSS reader instead of dumping raw XML. (Better than Firefox, again)
Real zoom. Try this: view this web page in IE7 and hit Ctrl-+ a few times, then do the same in Firefox. Huge difference; beats Firefox again.
Although the old menu bar is gone, the old menu accelerators still work; e.g. Alt-F shows the old menu bar and displays the file menu as expected.

The Bad:

They *still* don't have smooth scrolling working correctly. In fact, mouse wheel scrolling in general is very slow and choppy. (Actually, it appears to be OK on some sites, crappy on others)
It's a surprising rough release. It's quite slow at loading, scrolling, and resizing, and has crashed a couple of times for no apparent reason. I'm surprised they released it like this, beta or not.
Lots of rendering errors, too. I don't know if that's because of actual bugs, or because IE is *now* rendering correctly and the IE5/6 specific web sites are wrong.
IE *still* doesn't render large tables until the entire table has loaded.
Unacceptably large memory usage (over 70 MB of VM after a few minutes of use)
Draging links or text onto the tab bar or doesn't work as expected; Can't drag text at all onto the tab bar, which is one of may favorite features of both Safari and Firefox.
I don't like the lack of menu bar. I'm dreading the thought of having to explain over the phone to my parents how to open the options dialog.

Bottom line: There isn't enough here to get me to switch from Firefox (or Safari :p), and if they don't reign in the memory usage I doubt I'll even install it, but when I have to use IE on a friend or co-worker's machine, I'll be very glad if they have IE7 installed.

--
ENDUT! HOCH HECH!

Re:My take by Nightspirit · 2006-01-31 19:22 · Score: 1

To be fair, I've had firefox use over 350MB in more than one session. 70mb is quite reasonable. And the tab features beat firefox hands down.

I agree with the scrolling issue, and a couple of rendering problems, but for me the speed beats firefox for some reason. This site, fark, and cnn load twice as last for me in IE 7 than they do under firefox.

I actually like the lack of menu bar (as you said, the shortcuts still work), and you can configure it so that it does show the menu bar.

My only complaint is that the tab bar takes up way too much screen real estate (even with small icons selected). Until that is customizable and the scroll is is fixed I'll be sticking with either firefox or opera.
Re:My take by RabidMonkey · 2006-02-01 03:09 · Score: 1

I'm with you there - this morning FF hit 520meg before I had to kill it. Granted, I had 12 tabs open, but come on, 520meg??

If IE can do it in 70meg, I might have to switch back - my laptop only has 512meg of ram and I can't be throwing it away willy nilly for FF.

--
We emerge from our mother's womb an unformatted diskette; our culture formats us. - Douglas Coupland

Still Has Widescreen Display Issues by kungfuSiR · 2006-01-31 16:13 · Score: 1

I was rather disappointed to find that IE7 still had issues rendering graphics on widescreen displays. This is especially disappointing since Mozilla has worked flawlessly from the beginning so this is obviously an issue that is easily solved. There has been a work around released on the MSDN Blog that involves changing an Internet explorer registry key, but I was expecting IE7 to have this feature enabled by default, unfortunately it did not. I feel like IE7 is a definite improvement over IE6, but I think a lot of people have hit the nail on the head. Since Microsoft is playing catch-up what's the point in switching from Firefox to IE7? IE7 is basically just adding all the features that Firefox has had since its inception. I mean even from the UI you can tell that Microsoft is looking at browsers like Safari, and Firefox and taking a little from each to make their own. I think what Microsoft needs to do is stop trying to make their browser like everyone else's and actually come up with some original ideas that will help it stand out in the market. That being said however, not everyone has the ability to use Mozilla or alternative browsers, so for people who are in that situation I guess you can definitely look at IE7 as a vast improvement from IE6

--
I love to deploy my packages

Resampling images by dreemernj · 2006-01-31 16:20 · Score: 1

So far I am enjoying the Beta. But, I was really hoping it would have some level of image resampling, for instance on downsized GIF images. I got spoiled by Opera having this, but no other browser seems to do this.

--
1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg

WMP Problems by Axel2001 · 2006-01-31 17:01 · Score: 1

This beta seems to create some interesting issues with Windows Media Player 10. When opening some vidoes, WMP hangs.

No, that is bogus information by spitzak · 2006-01-31 18:21 · Score: 1

The trick with subpixel rendering is that it is *not* just a 3x higher resolution antialiased image. In fact the hinting has gone through some trouble to arrange things to be 3 subpixels wide. This means that the same number of r,g,b subpixels are turned on as they would with normal antialiasing.

If the user does not percieve the colors equal to what is expected, this would also change their perception of pure white (also made by summing r,g,b), thus changing the entire white balance of the monitor. If this annoys them they would twiddle the color settings to fix it.

You may be worried about non-linear perception of the color levels, with different responses for different colors. However ClearType does not take into account the non-linear sRGB display curve, and this error would swamp any problem in your eyes by an order of magnitude or more, and even that does not seem to be too objectionable.

So basically the above poster is full of it. Don't believe him.

That page works in ALL browsers! by spitzak · 2006-01-31 18:37 · Score: 1

My god, you magically fixed my copy of Firefox, too!

Actually that is a pointer to a reference image showing what it is supposed to look like.

Actually while typing this I realized you probably put that in as a joke. Good one.

How long until... by Hynee · 2006-01-31 20:17 · Score: 1

... they make a new Firefox theme that looks like IE7? The interface looks great.

Just a thought.

--
Damn, I already moderated this topic. Now I'll have to log in with my sock puppet to comment.

How to Run Both IE6 and IE7 PB2 On the Same PC by wolverine1999 · 2006-01-31 20:56 · Score: 1

This page explains how you can run both on the same PC without needing a virtual machine. It works.

http://weblogs.asp.net/jgalloway/archive/2005/12/2 8/434132.aspx

--
SCIREV.NET - fanfics,reviews & more

Preview tab looks like Omniweb Tabs by grandmofftarkin · 2006-01-31 21:27 · Score: 1

Looks like the ripped the feature of Omniweb, only without implementing it so well.

It screwed up my computer by SoundGuy666 · 2006-01-31 21:27 · Score: 1

Installed it, was happily browsing the web for about 5 minutes. Thought I'd give it a bit of java to test it, browsed through java.com for a few minutes - then my entire computer froze. Went to make a cup of coffee, came back and the screen was in 640x480 in 16 colours! Error box up saying "The nv4_disp driver has stopped working normally." All my other windows had vanished (couple of explorer, couple of the new IE). A reboot seemed to restore me to full res, full colour glory though. Methinks I'll disable java in it now though...

--
Why can't we all just get along?

Or Perhaps Shiira Tab-Expose by grandmofftarkin · 2006-01-31 21:31 · Score: 1

Actually on second thought this might be closer to Shiira Tab-Expose.

Default Search Provider by ady1 · 2006-01-31 23:34 · Score: 1

Interestingly you can change the search provider (in search bar) very easily in this build (I had to do a registry hack on the vista beta to change it to google). just click the arrow on search bar and select "find more providers". it will take you to this microsoft site page http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/searchguide/de fault_new.mspx# where you can select most of the top search providers including google and yahoo

Re:Save yourself some trouble by oyenstikker · 2006-02-01 01:58 · Score: 1

tried on 2000 server. "Wrong architecture (32/64bits)". Thats helpful.

--
The masses are the crack whores of religion.

Re:Real Zoom another Opera innovation by WhiteWolf666 · 2006-02-01 02:28 · Score: 1

Having the main menu bar under the tab bar is something you don't see everyday....

Is it a good thing? Unlikely. But its MS trying something totally new.

--
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell

Side-by-side with IE6 by mdg12 · 2006-02-01 02:43 · Score: 1

IE7 will render IE6 useless if you install it normally. If this happens, go to add/remove programs, click show updates, and uninstall it (all the way at the bottom of the list) To "install" it side-by-side with IE6, unpack the setup exe with winrar into a folder of your choosing. Delete both the update folder and shlwapi.dll. Create a text file called "IEXPLORE.EXE.LOCAL" in the same directory. Run iexplore.exe Appears to be better than the beta1 (post cumulative update) hack, which required a command line window stay open. A few buggy things still happen when wandering down this old route, but better than nothing...

Installing IE7b2 turns on link-clicking sound... by rklrkl · 2006-02-01 03:40 · Score: 1

I usually have my Windows "sound effects" all turned off, so when I installed IE7 beta 2 preview, I noticed an irritating "click" noise coming from my speakers whenever I clicked on a link, eventually driving me insane. It turns out IE7 re-enables the Windows Explorer sound effect for Start Navigation that I probably turned off years ago and hoped never to hear again.

Fixed it by selecting Control Panel -> Sounds and Multimedia -> Sounds -> Windows Explorer -> Start Navigation and then using the Name: pop-up menu to select "(None)". Does *anyone* use IE with that sound effect turned on and not go psycho after about a dozen pages?

Re:ACID2 test? Not even close. by PhoenixPath · 2006-02-01 04:23 · Score: 1

Let's see...

I could run it again...
take a screenshot...
open it and save it as something *other* than BMP.
upload it to a free image-hosting server that may or may not actually allow me to link it.
post URL that may or may not work.

Or...

You could test it yourself.

Yeah, I think we'll go with the latter, but thanks anyway. :)

I made a mistake... by amberp · 2006-02-01 05:10 · Score: 1

...of downloading the 11.2 MB installer from this site (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/IE/ie7/ie7betare direct.mspx) and tried to install it on a Win2k Prof machine....after extracting the files to a folder the installer popped up the following message

"This package does not support your system architecture (32/64bits)."

The machine is a 32 bit P4 machine.

You're likely wrong. There surely is a problem. by CyricZ · 2006-02-01 12:37 · Score: 1

Perhaps the developers of Opera should listen to those who have a problem with Opera's interface. Perhaps it's such a popular "myth" because it actually is a serious issue hindering the adoption of Opera.

Like it or not, Opera does appear bloated compared to a browser like Konqueror. But that's likely because Opera includes extra, non-browser functionality (ie. an email client). Many people do find Opera's interface cluttered. At least they got rid of the ads, which was a major source of clutter for many.

--
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.

Try Opera before you comment, young man. by hkmwbz · 2006-02-01 19:32 · Score: 1

Perhaps you should actually try Opera before commenting. The e-mail client, for example, is hidden by default. You won't notice that it's there unless you actually activate it by creating amail account. In fact, Opera hides all power functionality by default, so the interface is very clean. It is certainly cleaner than the button mess that is Konqueror.

Those who claim that Opera is cluttered haven't tried the latest versions.

--
Clever signature text goes here.

Slashdot Mirror

IE 7.0 Beta 2 Available to the Public

320 of 422 comments (clear)