Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Will Internet Explorer 7 Have Any Impact?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the speculations-welcome dept.

John Seyton asks: "A recent posting regarding Internet Explorer 7 has me pondering what impact this next release will have on the web market. Firefox has fought hard to make a small dent in Internet Explorer's armor, to the point that we can browse most of the web with no loss of functionality, yet if Internet Explorer 7 recaptures a sizable chunk of that market share, web authors might once again create offensive 'please upgrade to Internet Explorer' web pages. Based upon the known features, what does the Slashdot community think the impact of Internet Explorer 7 will be on the web in general? Will we be forced to live a two-browser life once again?"

136 comments

  1. not this time by yagu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think by definition since IE7 comes from Microsoft IE7 must have an impact. But I think it will have less impact than Microsoft's original reaction to get back into the internet race.

    "Last" time Microsoft managed two things at one time by bringing their browser to the internet: they managed to cut off the air supply (never liked that group anyway) to Netscape long enough to make Netscape irrelevant competition, and they actually created a less buggy browser (Netscape 4, anybody?). I hated them for it, but it was the perfect storm that killed Netscape and made IE king.

    The net scape today is too different for Microsoft to pull this off again. Like before they're mostly playing catch up... seemingly lulled by their victory, virtually ALL other browsers surpassed IE in features, and even in reliability when you factor in the security issues.

    And, ahh yes, the security issues -- features Microsoft included in IE combined with their Windows platform to enhance the web and browsing experience were also their undoing. While Microsoft always had and will have their cadre of softies following and coding to all of the Microsoft whistles and bells, I think this time many middle-roaders feel stung by the crap that was IE and are more inclined to steer clear of gee-whiz stuff and cater more to globally accepted standards.

    I can hardly wait to see what IE7 brings in enhanced functionality, but I can hardly believe there's anything they can do to convince the world they're for real this time. (Though, I never cease to marvel at Lucy's ability to convince Charlie Brown to kick the football one more time.)

    So, yes there'll be impact, but I don't see IE7 as the bombshell that was IE classic (or am I just whistling past the CSS yard?).

    1. Re:not this time by MinutiaeMan · · Score: 1

      >> While Microsoft always had and will have their cadre of softies following and coding to all of the Microsoft whistles and bells, I think this time many middle-roaders feel stung by the crap that was IE and are more inclined to steer clear of gee-whiz stuff and cater more to globally accepted standards.

      Add to that the fact that Microsoft now wants everybody to re-code their websites to work around the required EOLAS patch...

    2. Re:not this time by buddyglass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can see IE7 having a more substantial effect than you suggest. You're right in that MS is playing catchup, adding features to IE7 that have been in FireFox for a while, but that's precisely why I think it may be impactful. Except for the anti-MS zealots and users of nonWindows OSs, why does anyone switch to FireFox? Basically it's tabbed browsing and a decreased vulnerability to malware and similar exploits. What does IE7 offer? Tabbed browsing and decreased vulnerability to malware and similar exploits.

      Assuming IE7 actually lives up to those promises, what's my motivation for taking the time to download FireFox? Standards compliance? Nobody cares but web geeks. For that matter, it's often "easier" for the end-user to conform to the "Microsoft" standard than to actual W3C standards. Speed? FireFox's advantage is slight at best, and definitely not significant enough to motivate the "average user" to switch.

      One thing working in FireFox's favor is that it can play in the alternate-OS space, which is theoretically on the rise. To whatever extent Windows the OS loses share to Linux/OSX/etc., IE7 loses share to the browsers that operate on those platforms.

    3. Re:not this time by br0ck · · Score: 3, Informative

      what's my motivation for taking the time to download FireFox

      Extensions. IE 7 doesn't have AdBlock+, FlashBlock, Tab Mix +, session manager, live bookmarks, web developer toolbar, HTMLTidy source checker, HTTP live headers, Greasemonkey scripts, Slashdotter, or any number of a huge list of extremely handy utilities.

    4. Re:not this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think by definition since IE7 comes from Microsoft IE7 must have an impact.

      I think you need a better dictionary. It's one wacky definition that includes such implications.

    5. Re:not this time by Korgan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're going to have to download IE7 to use it before you get your hands on Vista. So I turn the question around on you.

      Whats the motivation to download IE7 for features I already have with Firefox? Why would my mother or my mothers friends want to use IE7 when they already have the features of IE7 and then some (such as extensions) simply by sticking with Firefox?

      IE7 is only going to get a massive user base if MS force it upon us through WindowsUpdate as a "critical update". Otherwise, I don't think we'll see many people bothering to install it. As a result, I would say that the adoption of IE7 won't truly start until the adoption of Vista begins.

      So even if IE7 stays on target and gets released this year, most people are going to completely ignore it till next year anyway I suggest.

    6. Re:not this time by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Firefox/Mozilla didnt have those to start with either, yet they came.

    7. Re:not this time by Peter+Mork · · Score: 2, Informative

      Whats the motivation to download IE7 for features I already have with Firefox?

      I can't speak for people in general; I can only describe why I switched to IE7. I primarily switched to Firefox for tabbed browsing. I endured Firefox frustrations that manifest on an XP machine, which include unreliable cut/paste and a frequent inability to scroll using arrow keys. I haven't seen this behavior on Linux, but it's much more convenient to run XP at work. So, when IE7 came out, I switched back because I got tabs and cut/paste. I still bring up Firefox when doing web development because of the web-developer extension, but for /.ing, it's IE7 for me.

      FWIW, I find that IE7 and Firefox usually render identically. To date I've only seen one exception, but then I only do comparisons when I'm designing websites, which isn't too often. (In other words, IANA web-expert.)

    8. Re:not this time by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      You're going to have to download IE7 to use it before you get your hands on Vista. So I turn the question around on you.

      Actually, I was planning to wait until Vista came out. Or, failing that, until IE7 moved out of beta and became available through Windows Update, like you mention below.

      Whats the motivation to download IE7 for features I already have with Firefox?

      1. It came pre-installed with your OS, 2. You want a browser that every website designer absolutely must test against. I'm not suggesting IE7 is going to steal much share from current FireFox users. I'm suggesting it will severely reduce FireFox's appeal to those who don't already use it, since it negates two of the biggest advantages FireFox has over IE6: tabbed browsing and resistance to malware.

      Why would my mother or my mothers friends want to use IE7 when they already have the features of IE7 and then some (such as extensions) simply by sticking with Firefox?

      I don't know about your mother, but none of my non-technical friends know what extensions are, much less which ones are worth installing. They would have very little motivation to switch to IE7 as long as FireFox continued to do what they need it to do. However, if one of them bought a new computer, I highly doubt he or she would bother to re-install FireFox if IE7 were available and could offer some level of resistance to malware.

      Basically, once Vista/IE7 go out the door, I'd expect a marked drop in the growth rate of FireFox among Windows users. As non-technical FireFox users gradually replace their machines and get IE7 by default, I'd expect a gradual decline in FireFox's Windows market share. That could be offset by a increase in the share of non-Windows desktops, should the Linux desktop pick up steam.

    9. Re:not this time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forget about corporations. Most system administrators will download and install IE7 on the corporate intranet for security reasons. Employees that use it 8 hours a day at work will want it at home because they are comfortable with it and they like those cool new features that it has (because 75% or more don't know about Firefox).

      I know I've tried to get my parents to use Firefox by installing it on their computer and encouraging them to use the orange icon instead of the blue E, but everytime I visit and my dad wants to show me something he found on the internet, he uses IE. Because it's what he uses at work. So I've quit trying to change them. I'm already planning to install IE7 on their system when it becomes available.

    10. Re:not this time by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Well, the IE7 0 day exploits and continuing exploits that plague all IE versions from 5.x onward, should continue to make people happy with FF. As someone who has to do enough web dev type stuff, FF is my only browser. Basically, if it works in FF, it should work in everything, and IE testing is left to the QA folks. (I'm not responsible for fancy CSS stuff, just putting the data on the page, so the quirks of browsers are less important for me:)

      And besides, there's just something trendy and enlarging about not using an MS shoved product. The enlightment that comes with increased realization is subtle, but hopefully large enough to continue making folks aware of whether they're using FF. One thing that comes to my mind is some of my family that I inadvertently support. ;) They call and say XYZ is happening, we step through the inevitable process of debugging things via phone, and lo and behold, IE usage is more often than not the culprit (adware, virus, whatever). After the cleanup process, again remotely through the phone, is usually painful enough that I only have to do it once, and the process of getting them to install FF is painless. After they install it and Thunderbird, my calls drop off significantly. What more can we say?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    11. Re:not this time by pugugly · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And what will kill IE, if MS goes true to form, is that they will look at the top 50 Firefox plugin, and code all of them into IE.

      *ALL* of them. Not the fiften I use, or the four you love, every last one. Corporate managers will love it, but the IT departments will stay on Firefox - .

      --
      An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
  2. Not much by jandrese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IE didn't capture massive market share because it was way better than Netscape (although it was better for quite some time), it captured the market share because it was the default browser of Windows. The kind of people who actually download and upgrade browsers are the kind of people who run Firefox for the most part. I don't think IE7 is going to put a major dent in the usage patterns of your typical website, and most of its gains will be from the IE6/5 crowd as they buy new computers that have IE7 preinstalled instead of IE5.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:Not much by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      I.E. 3 was available with the Windows 95 Plus Pack, it wasn't until Win95 OSR2 that it was part of the default install iirc.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    2. Re:Not much by jandrese · · Score: 1

      I think if you look at the history of it, you'll notice that IE didn't really take off until it was made part of the default install.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    3. Re:Not much by c_forq · · Score: 1

      Interesting... everyone I knew didn't switch from Netscape or AOL (which their ISPs gave or sold to them) to IE until Windows 98... wonder why that might be?

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    4. Re:Not much by flonker · · Score: 1

      In my experience, start time was a major factor in IE's dominance.

    5. Re:Not much by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Yes I know this is Slashdot... however if you are going to make such a blanket assertion you should at least back it up.

      Granted I am doing little more than criticizing right now, I am at least digging for some browser statistics from 95 to 2000, might I suggest you do the same?

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    6. Re:Not much by sconeu · · Score: 1

      NT4 came bundled with IE2. First thing you did with it was to get Netscape 3.1.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    7. Re:Not much by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      Actually IE was part of the "default install" for about three years with very little affect. It wasn't until IE4 came out with Windows 98 that IE started to take off.

      Personally, I think the "cutting off the airsupply" deals with ISPs had much larger effect than the default install issue. It wasn't so much the default install but making it more difficult to get Netscape.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    8. Re:Not much by Korgan · · Score: 1

      Just for facts sake, IE4 was included as seperate CD with Windows 95C. Prior to that, IE3 was the version that came with Windows 95 and it wasn't installed by default. You had to select it during the installation process (or going back further, install it from the Plus pack.)

      Then in August 1998, all things went pear shaped and IE was supposedly built in as a core part of the Windows platform. Although, I'd dispute this saying that the Windows 98lite project managed to remove it completely by my recollection.

      IE wasn't a core part of the OS properly (in the way that we know it today) until the Windows NT5/2000 betas and the Windows ME release. Up until that point, it was possible to completely remove IE without any sort of adverse affect on the system.

      Mind you, I guess that depends on your definition of adverse ;-)

    9. Re:Not much by drsmithy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      IE didn't capture massive market share because it was way better than Netscape (although it was better for quite some time), it captured the market share because it was the default browser of Windows.

      This argument is common, but it doesn't hold water when you consider the largest growth in IE's marketshare was the period of time between IE4's first public beta until 6 - 12 months after Windows 98 was released.

      During this time, the vast bulk of end users were only able to get IE4 from either an internet download, or magazine cover CDs and the like.

      IE4 most certainly *did* "captured massive market share" because it was better. People sure as hell weren't manually installing it because it was worse.

    10. Re:Not much by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 1

      Well, after Netscape 4.x was released, Netscape really didn't do anything with their browser or suite. The updates came less and less frequently, and often introduced new bugs, etc. 5.0 was promised but never came out.

      And it took years for Mozilla to reach the 1.0 release. I know this, because I never used IE regularly. That period between Netscape 4.0something and Mozilla some stable 1.0 release was a loooong wait.

      Meanwhile, IE kept adding new features.

      It's as if two people are racing, and one person stood still. It's pretty clear who will win.

      --
      94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
    11. Re:Not much by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      rior to that, IE3 was the version that came with Windows 95 and it wasn't installed by default

      This is wrong. IE was installed by default on nearly every OEM system that shipped with Win95 B/C/D

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    12. Re:Not much by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      To add to that, it also doesn't take into consideration the fact that IE became the most popular browser on Mac OS... not just Windows. And Apple shipped both Netscape and IE on the system CDs, neither of which was "default."

      The sad fact of the matter is that Netscape versions after about 4.0.8 completely sucked. It was impossible to get *just* a browser (like IE), you had to get a whole "Communicator" package full of crap you'd never use. Which of course was bloated as hell, slow, sucked memory, and crashed a lot. (I stuck with 4.0.8 after trying Communicator, then eventually switched to IE 4 for Mac when it was clear that Netscape wasn't going to release another browser any time soon.)

      If you ask me, there's one reason and only one reason Netscape lost their marketshare: Their product sucked ass compared to the competition. Period. We laugh at how crappy IE is now, but back when it was IE up against Netscape Communicator 4.x, IE was quicker, more stable, and had more features. On both Mac and PC.

      --
      Comment of the year
    13. Re:Not much by EvilJoker · · Score: 1

      IE was installed on Win95 original as well- it was IE2 (just barely usable enough to download IE3 or NS, IMHO). IIRC there were no links to it, but it was there.

      Thus, IE has been installed by default on every version of windows since 95.

    14. Re:Not much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IE didn't capture massive market share because it was way better than Netscape (although it was better for quite some time), it captured the market share because it was the default browser of Windows.

      I don't know what planet you're on. The fact that it was preinstalled didn't actually do that much for it.

      When IE was young, and sucked, even the most computer-illiterate PC users knew that step 1 on a new computer was to use IE to download Netscape.

    15. Re:Not much by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      Then in August 1998, all things went pear shaped and IE was supposedly built in as a core part of the Windows platform.

      Before this, IE4 - when installed - replaced several parts of the system (eg: explorer) with those that used the IE components as Windows 98 (and followers did). So, effectively, as soon as you installed IE4, IE was "part of the OS".

      Before this, IE3 was the first version to be of the "component" archtecture.

      Although, I'd dispute this saying that the Windows 98lite project managed to remove it completely by my recollection.

      98lite only worked by replacing the parts of WIndows 98 that relied on IE with those from Windows 95. If you didn't have Windows 95 already, you couldn't use it.

  3. You will always live a two-browser life by eln · · Score: 0, Troll

    As long as you choose to use something other than IE, you will always live a two-browser life. Microsoft has the vast majority of the web browser market, and there's no reason to believe that will change in the near future. Microsoft has also been "embracing and extending" various standards in ways that are incompatible with other browsers for at least the past 10 years, and there's no reason to think that's going to stop either.

    IE7 will not shake up the browser market in any significant way one way or the other, things will remain pretty much as they are now.

    1. Re:You will always live a two-browser life by AuMatar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Two browser life? I've been to a site that didn't work in Mozilla once in the past year. No 2 browser life for me, I just didn't buy the product at that one site.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    2. Re:You will always live a two-browser life by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

      You do know that IE doesn't run on linux, right?

    3. Re:You will always live a two-browser life by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 3, Informative

      IE doesn't run on my systems.

      Linux or OS X.

      Exactly how do I run a two browser life? And while Linux's desktop marketshare may be limited (this is arguable), it's indisputable that OS X has a small, but economically and socially significant portion of the desktop market.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    4. Re:You will always live a two-browser life by Kelson · · Score: 2, Informative

      You do know that IE doesn't run on linux, right?

      Well, not natively. I've managed to install it in CrossOver Office (i.e. WINE), but it's not worth using for more than site testing.

      The funniest part is the dialog box you get after installing that says, "Simulating Reboot."

    5. Re:You will always live a two-browser life by hahiss · · Score: 1


      Right: Firefox and links2

      --
      "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
    6. Re:You will always live a two-browser life by lazybeam · · Score: 1

      My two-browser life is Opera and Firefox. If it doesn't work in either of those then they don't get my business. I've even left a bank partly because they "upgraded" their internet banking and it no longer works in Opera.

      --
      --
      no sig for you. come back one year.
    7. Re:You will always live a two-browser life by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      Exactly ;)

      Voting with your dollar. I'm with ya :)

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    8. Re:You will always live a two-browser life by zcat_NZ · · Score: 1

      I've been living a 'one browser' life for years; Firefox and nothing else (before that it was just Mozilla).

      I've only encountered one site in recent memory that insisted on MSIE, and that was only for the signup which I used a friend's machine for. I'm aware of other sites deliberately searching for them, but only ever ran into one during ordinary web use..

      My bank is fine with Firefox, and if they ever change that I will not hesitate to switch banks.

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
    9. Re:You will always live a two-browser life by lazybeam · · Score: 1

      Nine times out of ten the site will still work with the non-MSIE browser, if you change the query string. I've installed squid on my (Linux) laptop just for that, and use Opera quick preferences to turn it on and off. http://web.acma.gov.au/numb/login.do is one such site. But I managed to get a CSV version of what I wanted anyway, and imported into my own database which makes it much easier to manipulate.

      It's usually only strange Javascipt or security-killing ActiveX that cause real problems.

      --
      --
      no sig for you. come back one year.
    10. Re:You will always live a two-browser life by zcat_NZ · · Score: 1

      I won't jump through hoops for _any_ website. It's just too easy to go find another website that has the same information or service, and does work.

      And when it comes to banking it's my opinion that any bank which requires MSIE (or claims to require it, even if it can be bypassed) is putting up a big flashing neon sign that says "WE HAVE NO FSCKING CLUE" -- I'd switch anyway, and advise my friends to do the same.

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
    11. Re:You will always live a two-browser life by lazybeam · · Score: 1

      Well for a bank, I wouldn't bother with them (I've also avoided a VOIP company because their site doesn't work with non-IE, even if they have the cheapest rates in the country). But I only used the squid proxy to see what ACMA did that needed IE (it used to work with everything - just a simple form) and also emailed them. A government department should have everything accessable. It contained information I wanted and not available elsewhere.

      --
      --
      no sig for you. come back one year.
    12. Re:You will always live a two-browser life by mattyrobinson69 · · Score: 1

      i used a script i found once, that downloaded and installed IE 5,5.5 and 6, and installed them with wine, thing is, ie6 didn't render anything like what the windows pc did next to me, and ie 5 and ie 5.5 didn't run for me.

      ah well.

  4. Absolutely! by Foofoobar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Botnets will experience a large growth rate and virus manufacturers will recieve record growth.

    Will it have an impact? I can hear the impact of it hitting the fan as we speak... but it's not the impact that I'm worried about as much as the splatter.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  5. No IE 7 for Windows 2000 by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    Unlike the features of Mozilla Firefox 2.0 (currently in development under the codename Bon Echo), the features of Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 do not include compatibility with obsolete operating systems such as Microsoft Windows 2000.

    1. Re:No IE 7 for Windows 2000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      the features of Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 do not include compatibility with obsolete operating systems such as Microsoft Windows 2000.

      I've corrected the above with regard to obsolesence but I'm wondering if the compatibility reference is still accurate?

      the features of Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 do not include compatibility with obsolete operating systems such as Microsoft Windows.

    2. Re:No IE 7 for Windows 2000 by Myen · · Score: 2, Informative

      And Firefox 3 (whenever that shows up; Gecko 1.9 and later) will not be compatible with Win9x (initially due to Cairo not supporting it, and now that's decided more stuff like Unicode file names too)

  6. Will Internet Explorer 7 Have Any Impact? by thewiz · · Score: 3, Funny

    Only if dropped from a really tall building.

    Seriously, IE7 will only have an impact if they can fix the security issues. Otherwise, Firefox, Opera and others will continue to gain share in the market.

    --
    If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
  7. The only impact I can see... by Inoshiro · · Score: 1

    is that I can use the correct XML DOM in my Javascript and other complex web applications. If people's stupid IE 5 and IE 6 can't handle it (because they only implement the proprietary MSHTML DOM), I can say stuff it to them.

    I always could before, but the fact that it's another Quality Microsoft Product (TM) means that folks who are unwilling to be persuaded by reason can still use the Internet when the Internet stops being proprietary.

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
    1. Re:The only impact I can see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well...that's what I do on my personal website too. Especially the event model differences are too much to bother with. But (I think you know) if a business had to choose to support just one or the other, it's going to be MS IE.

  8. CSS... by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1

    Microsoft's refusal to come closer to a reasonable attempt at compliance with the latest accepted CSS standard will always create issues. What's astonishing to me is that they don't seem to realize that if they did, they could walk all over FF in the average consumer market (more than they are already, that is...).

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    1. Re:CSS... by TeraCo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The average consumer market doesn't know what a CSS is, and wouldn't care if they did. All they care about is whether the site looks ok, and if it does, they'll keep using whatever they're using right now. (Be it FF, IE5, lynx.. )

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    2. Re:CSS... by Toby_Tyke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Microsoft's refusal to come closer to a reasonable attempt at compliance with the latest accepted CSS standard will always create issues. What's astonishing to me is that they don't seem to realize that if they did, they could walk all over FF in the average consumer market (more than they are already, that is...).

      Oh, you're so, so wrong. I used to work for a major provider of online training courses. We made everything from accountancy to basic literacy courses, all delivered online through a web based interface. With such a huge varity of courses, I think it's safe to say that the users of our stuff made up a decent cross section of the "average consumer market".

      Now, our main web page was not, in any way, standards compliant, and rendered like an absolute dog in firefox. (I left 18 months ago, since when the site has been redesigned, but I just checked it still renders wrong in FF) All of our stuff was only tested, and only ran, in IE. And do you know how often someone complained to us that they couldn't access their course using firefox? Never. Not once. You know why? none of them used it. Firefox is used by only the more advanced and tech savy web surfers, and maybe a few Average Joes who have a techy friend that installed it for them. (My dad and my brother fall into the second group)

      So whats the moral of that story? Am I saying standards compliance is irrelevant? Not exactly. What I'm saying, and this will be a vastly unpopular notion on Slashdot, is that IE IS the standard. It's what 80+ / 90+ (depending who you ask) of web surfers use. Our site looked awful in FF. No one cared. Of our clientel, most had never even heard of FF. If we had rebuilt it from the ground up, made it fully standards complient, and IE had been unable to render it, we would have been swamped with tech support calls telling us our site was broken.

      IE7 will be the defacto standard in 2 or 3 years time, and we had all best learn to live with it.

      --
      "I realise this is not a very popular opinion but it's the truth, and there for needs to be said" -Bill Hicks
    3. Re:CSS... by hurfy · · Score: 1

      "And do you know how often someone complained to us that they couldn't access their course using firefox? Never. Not once. You know why?"

      yup, too lazy ;)

      Remember it takes a few minutes to tell you it looks funny, it takes a few seconds to poke an X then poke a big blue E.

      Sorry it was simpler to just close FF and open IE especially when the class time is in a few minutes. By the end of course, noone remembers to complain... :(

      Most FF user will have ran across this accessing their bank or something somewhere and know to try the 'other one'

      The fact that noone complained simply means that noone complained ;)

    4. Re:CSS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It takes a few hours to hunt down that Windows install CD just to click that blue E. And IE in Wine isn't a simple, reliable thing, in my experience.

    5. Re:CSS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...hunt down that Windows CD?

      Odd.

    6. Re:CSS... by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      On my non-tech website IE is down to under 60% browser market share. Firefox has 26%. That's pretty good for a site used mostly by non-techical older people.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    7. Re:CSS... by mini+me · · Score: 1

      The only people who care about proper rendering are the people who make the site.

      As long as the user can access the information with ease, it doesn't matter to Joe Average that the is in the wrong spot.

      As long as the site was still viewable in FF, they aren't going to complain. There is no reason to.

    8. Re:CSS... by TeraCo · · Score: 1

      Then the 26% was installed by someone who knows better. The very fact that someone has bothered to get educated takes them out of the ranks of the 'average consumer.

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    9. Re:CSS... by Toby_Tyke · · Score: 1

      No I would maintain its because well over 90 percent of them did'nt use it. Trust me, most of the users out there simply think the blue E IS the internet.

      People complain about everything We had user complaints about everything, from "why do I have to be on the internet to do this?" (not kidding) to "why don't you give me a free copy of Office with my course?". But in all the time I worked there, I never had a single person ask why something did'nt work in firefox. I even had questions about Macs, but never about firefox.

      I think you're at least partly right, most Firefox users are techsavy enough to know to use IE. But really, thats my point. The guy I replied to said standards compliance would help MS. I'm saying they don't have to comply with anything, because they are the standard. Web developers will continue to hack our pages to work in IE, and if something fails to render properly in FF, the firefox users know enough to open IE (unless they're Linux users, but who cares about communists? Joke).

      So, in answer to the question in the article, yes IE7 will make a difference. It WILL become the most popular web browser, probably in around 18 months to 2 years after it's released. We will all hack our code to work in it, whether we like it or not, because it's what our customers use.

      BTW, I use FF on Suse Linux. IE is just somehting I have to live with at work. But since I spend 8 hours a day at work, any new version of IE makes a huge difference to me.

      --
      "I realise this is not a very popular opinion but it's the truth, and there for needs to be said" -Bill Hicks
    10. Re:CSS... by Peter+Mork · · Score: 1

      Microsoft's refusal to come closer to ... compliance with the latest accepted CSS standard ...

      Have you tried using IE7? (I'm not trying to suggest that you have not, this is an honest query.) Being a bit of a standards-geek, I run all of the pages I develop through the W3C validator until there are no errors (apart from no explicit character-encoding). Whereas there have been big differences between IE6 and Firefox, the differences between IE7 and Firefox are small (and the deviations seem, to my inexpert eye, to cut both ways).

    11. Re:CSS... by paving-slab · · Score: 1

      It is if you use this script.

    12. Re:CSS... by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      That still means that 26% of the average consumer either has done this themselves or has someone that did it for them. Either way it still looks like 40% of my customers are using non-IE, standards complaint, browsers.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  9. My $0.02 by mattpointblank · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "what does the Slashdot community think the impact of Internet Explorer 7 will be on the web in general? Will we be forced to live a two-browser life once again?"

    I think we never left the 'two-browser life' stage. As a developer, I obviously have both browsers installed and regularly use both to test designs, despite favouring Firefox for personal browsing. I think the competition is healthy, better to have people divided amongst 5 or 6 'core' browsers (IE, Opera, Firefox, Safari, Lynx maybe and Konqueror) is better than having everyone locked into one single program. It does make continuity and consistency an issue for web developers, but I'd still rather it was that way than have everyone using the same badly-written software.

    Regarding the topic at hand, I think the release of IE7 won't change too much. Probably everyone running XP now, unaware of the alternate options, will just get the XP "upgrade now!" bubble and download the newer version without really being aware of the differences. From my attempts to educate my spyware-ridden family regarding OSS, it seems that often, computer laymen aren't aware that there are other browsers, and just see IE as the abritrary, sole browser in existence. The biggest thing is educating them to their options then allowing them to freely choose. IE7 won't convert many Firefox users back, it'll just upgrade the IE6 and Vista-buying public who never really know the difference to start with.

    1. Re:My $0.02 by caffeinemessiah · · Score: 1
      the biggest thing is educating them to their options then allowing them to freely choose. IE7 won't convert many Firefox users back, it'll just upgrade the IE6 and Vista-buying public who never really know the difference to start with.
      You make a good point -- that the vast majority of the public doesn't even know that there are "other browsers". Take it a step further -- a large part of the surfing public doesn't even know what a "browser" is. They click on the big blue "E" to see Google, much like they click on the "W" to type letters.

      IMO, the only laymen who would be concerned with "alternative browsers" are those who have something to lose, i.e. those who enter their financial details online. And that just isn't a HUGE proportion of them....

      Let's not forget that computers will come with IE7 preinstalled...so notwithstanding that this is slashdot, it's still pretty hard to say that IE7 won't have an impact.

      --
      An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
    2. Re:My $0.02 by xwipeoutx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When the last IE flaw was announced, I asked a coworker if she uses Internet explorer, and she replied "I use the internet every day, yes". IE IS the internet to most (less tech-savvy) people. I installed firefox, put the icon in the same place as IE, told her to clicky that instead, and she's none the wiser now. Only problem I've had thus far is she wanted flash, so I had to install that. No worries...

    3. Re:My $0.02 by jayegirl · · Score: 1

      Just as a curious aside, it struck me that a really good way to increase Firefox's market share would be to hack the Windows Update server such that FF gets automatically downloaded to all the wonderful windows users out there. You could even use the standard critical level non-description in the update box :).

      How much development effort would this really take?

      HHOS!
      Jaye.

  10. New features? by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1

    Most of the 'new' features are not new in the browser market. Most of them are already available with Firefox and Opera and other browsers.

    As for the security, we all know how much improvement they have done in that area since Bill Gates' call to revamp IE (and Windows in general) security few years back. Few securities gaps have already been found in IE7 Beta.

    I think the damage done by security issues in IE6 and previous versions of IE has started the downhill, and its not gonna be reversed that soon, that easily.

  11. Two levels of Impact by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One: everyone who buys a PC from a vendor locked into shipping a Microsoft OS, will have this preinstalled.

    Two: All the rest of us will have to cope with any mistakes they make, no matter how much Firefox penetration there is.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Two levels of Impact by chris_mahan · · Score: 0, Troll

      Dude,

      When my friends/family/buddies buy a PC with windows on it, the VERY FIRST thing I do when they ask me to "Please fix it it's hopelessly broken" involves Ubuntu and a reformatting of the hard drive. Consequently, IE goes Poof.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

  12. Web Development Issue by dduardo · · Score: 4, Funny

    As a web developer I'm interested to know if IE7 has broken all the IE6/5 hacks that I worked hard to put into my code. That's my major concern.

    1. Re:Web Development Issue by generic-man · · Score: 1

      You can download a public beta of IE7, though of course you can't have both IE7 and IE6 on the same system at the same time. Time to start messing with VMWare/plex86/VirtualPC in that case...

      --
      For more information, click here.
    2. Re:Web Development Issue by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      From what I've heard

      Short answer: Yes

      Long answer: Yes, and they didn't fix the problems you needed the hacks to work around either.

      To it's credit, I did notice one new rendering feature I liked, now ANY element can support :hover and :active attributes, not just the a tag. Of course Firefox and Opera had this already...

      Again to be fair, I myself haven't dug deep into rendering changes.

    3. Re:Web Development Issue by Kelson · · Score: 2, Informative

      I recommend checking out the IE Team Blog. They regularly post on new features, changes to the rendering engine, etc.

      As for hacks specifically, a few months ago, they started recommending a shift away from using CSS hacks and toward using conditional comments. The latter can be used to target specific IE versions with intended functionality, rather than side effects.

    4. Re:Web Development Issue by Gord · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > though of course you can't have both IE7 and IE6 on the same system at the same time

      Yes you can.

    5. Re:Web Development Issue by MrFlannel · · Score: 1

      http://www.webdevout.net/browser_support.php?uas=I E6-IE7-FX1_5-OP8#css

      Erm, if that doesn't set it up with IE7 for you, click the link at the very top (to change which browsers show).

      --
      Clones are people two.
    6. Re:Web Development Issue by generic-man · · Score: 1

      Wow... unRAR an EXE file? I never would have thought of such things. Thank you much!

      --
      For more information, click here.
    7. Re:Web Development Issue by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      As for hacks specifically, a few months ago, they started recommending a shift away from using CSS hacks and toward using conditional comments. The latter can be used to target specific IE versions with intended functionality, rather than side effects.

      I agree with them. Conditional comments kick ass!

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    8. Re:Web Development Issue by Dracos · · Score: 1

      The voice-family hack was broken by SP2.

    9. Re:Web Development Issue by ArmorFiend · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Call me crazy, but I just stopped supporting IE about 2 years ago. I test in Konq and Firefox. If 90% of the population is too dumb to follow the "worst viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer" link at the bottom of each page, then they deserve to look at broken crap. Not my problem.

      Doing my part to right the wrongs as I see them.

    10. Re:Web Development Issue by Kjella · · Score: 1

      As for hacks specifically, a few months ago, they started recommending a shift away from using CSS hacks and toward using conditional comments. The latter can be used to target specific IE versions with intended functionality, rather than side effects.

      That statement doesn't make much sense to me. Last time I did this (luckily I've gotten out of it) I used a conditional comment to include the CSS containing the IE hacks. That way my main design is 100% clean with no hacks. Not only that, but some of my original CSS settings make IE go beserk and those that worked in IE would never work in any standards-compliant browser so it was impossible to have a unified CSS design. If that's the way they meant it, it wasn't very clear to me. The CSS hacks are still all there, they're only included via a conditional comment.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    11. Re:Web Development Issue by Kelson · · Score: 1

      The "hacks" referred to here aren't work-arounds for bugs or missing features, they're techniques to target specific browsers (usually so that you can deliver said work-arounds).

      Things like prepending * html to a rule so that it will only apply in Internet Explorer (because technically, * html shouldn't match anything, but IE6 allows it), or using /*/*/ ... /* */ to hide a chunk of the stylesheet from Netscape 4.

      The hacks they recommend against are those that rely on bugs in the way browsers parse or implement CSS, or on missing features. With these, there's always the chance that a future version will fix the bug that triggers the hack, but not fix the bug that you're trying to work around. With conditional comments, you can target IE or non-IE, and you can target specific versions of IE, and you know that rule will always apply only to the browsers you specify.

  13. 7.0 won't, 7.5 might by Bogtha · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Let's face it, 7.0 is a hurried release to get the Internet Explorer brand going again. It doesn't even close the gap between it and last year's browsers, let alone this year's. Yes, it has a couple of interesting features, but nothing that really stands out. Furthermore, everybody still using Windows 2000 won't be able to use it.

    However Microsoft have indicated that they aren't going to let Internet Explorer rot for another four years after this release - there's likely to be a 7.5 and 8.0 in quick succession. These versions are likely to have an impact.

    They are likely to get the rendering engine into the kind of shape where they can make proper changes to it (think display: table, XHTML and the DOM event model) without massive regressions. If they do implement XHTML, they won't be limited by their requirement to keep bug-for-bug compatibility with earlier quirks because they can implement a new strict mode for application/xhtml+xml. They won't be fooling around with tabs for the interface, they'll be doing something new. Everybody using Windows 2000 will skip Internet Explorer 7.0 and get 7.5 or 8.0 when they upgrade.

    Apart from the year 2010 or so, when web developers will be able to use things like 1998's CSS 2 selectors and expect it to work for the majority of their visitors, 7.0 will have virtually no impact compared with the subsequent versions.

    --
    Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    1. Re:7.0 won't, 7.5 might by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However Microsoft have indicated that they aren't going to let Internet Explorer rot for another four years after this release - there's likely to be a 7.5 and 8.0 in quick succession.

      You still believe what MicroSoft says about releases? Yeah, there'll be an IE8. Just like there'll eventually be a Vista. On time and feature complete. *snicker*

    2. Re:7.0 won't, 7.5 might by Kelson · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think you've hit it. IE7 is already far superior to IE6 in terms of what CSS it can handle (and how correctly it can handle it), but still far behind other browsers. If they manage to cath up with 7.5 or 8, even to where Firefox and Opera are today, then we'll have four classes of modern browsers, with the lowest common denominator finally at a level we would have liked to be able to use three years ago.

      But there will still be a lot of IE6 users a year, two years, three years after IE7 is released. And that will continue to hold back web development until IE6 goes the way of Netscape 4.

      As for marketshare, I suspect IE7 will get some of the people who were on the fence about switching. I don't think it'll stop or reverse the trend -- in other words, I expect few people will switch back, except under the circumstance that they get a new computer and don't want to bother migrating their settings.

    3. Re:7.0 won't, 7.5 might by davez0r · · Score: 1
      until IE6 goes the way of Netscape 4
      ID Logon Software

      47144 3/28/2006 11:28:42 PM Mozilla/4.08
      *cries*
  14. Losing Marketshare by Zaurus · · Score: 1

    ...yet if Internet Explorer 7 recaptures a sizable chunk of that market share...

    Heh. Hee hee. HAR!

    Oh sorry, I just love the fact that there's actually a nugget of truth to the implication that IE has lost tons of ground. Even given that IE still has the lion's share of the market, it has less than 5% of the market that affects my daily life now. I've converted 50+ employees to Firefox or Safari, as well as my closest friends and relatives. Bwahahahaha!

    1. Re:Losing Marketshare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work at a newspaper, the cool thing is that NO-one is using IE anymore.
      The journalists work on mac machines running OSX so they use safari or firefox as their browser.
      All supporting services run windblows 2000. IE is blocked and Firefox is used.
      As mail platform we decided a few months ago to migrate averyone to thunderbird.

      The cool thing is that a LOT of users call IT to ask where they can get firefox, so a lot of our employees are installing mozilla software at home too.

      Lately i've made it a rule not to leave the house without a usb stick with the latest release of firefox (+ my selection of plugins) and thunderbird

  15. What will keep IE out of devs love by secondsun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Will IE 7 keep Microsofts brain damaged event model?
    Will IE 7 implement standard HTML dom methods?
    Will IE 7 implement standard HTML dom methods to the spec?

    The answer to this is a loud no from the IE team. They have already said that they know their scripting engine is woefully out of date and have no intention of fixing it in this release cycle. Something to look foward to in IE 9 then (since IE 8 will probably be a fix release like 2 was for 1 and 5 was for 4).

    --
    There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
  16. Definitions by Zaurus · · Score: 0

    I think by definition since IE7 comes from Microsoft IE7 must have an impact.

    I think the submitter was implying a positive impact...

  17. I'm a Two-Browser Man... in a Different Way by PateraSilk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I use Firefox because it renders things slightly faster than Safari, and Safari for those weird websites that don't like Firefox for some reason. I haven't used IE for quite some time, even on my Windows machines.

    --
    Danke tres mucho, tovarishch.
  18. see Userfriendly.org by NoSuchGuy · · Score: 1

    http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20060330

    --
    Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
  19. Playing the fence... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Microsoft could play both sides of the fence by releasing a buggy browser and then insist that developers upgrade to the newest development tools to compensate for the problems in the browser. Oh, wait a minute... they are already doing that.

  20. Please, give some info in the summary! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    What is this "Internet Explorer"? Who makes it, what purpose does it have? You have to understand that not all /. readers can keep up with all the new applications out there.

  21. Asking Slashdot what they think of IE is like.... by JustASlashDotGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Heh.. Asking Slashdot users what they think of IE is like asking the Chinese
    government what they think of free speech.

  22. Well... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm working on the most advanced pornsite ever contemplated, and it's only going to work in browsers other than IE. Firefox 1.5, Opera 9 both work fine, even Konqueror 4 looks to be in the picture, as well as Safari as soon as it gets SVG. But IE? Not a chance.

    Too many interactive diagrams both for the cataloging webapp and for the search webapp rely on SVG. If I have to convince people to install an Adobe plugin, I might as well do right by them, and convince them to use a real browser.

    1. Re:Well... by FFFish · · Score: 1

      Yay, porn! Once again, it leads us out of the dark side!

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    2. Re:Well... by NilObject · · Score: 1

      You just brought up an interesting point: people have no problem installing plug-ins but refuse to upgrade to Firefox. The solution is obvious!

      The Firefox Plug-In!

      Seriously, that would be awesome. Switch out the rendering engine with a plug-in and save me (a web-developer) the pain in the ass of hacking my pages to work on the abomination that is IE. Tell the users that it comes with new emoticons and wallpapers and other equally worthless crap and they'll install in droves. SpreadFirefox.com wont know what hit 'em!

    3. Re:Well... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      Once I'm ready, I will be posting some screenshots to show just what is possible with firefox on the front page.

      IE simply isn't anything that you can make decent webapps for. Seriously, try to code up something for everything but IE sometime, you'll be amazed... it all uses the same damn code. 90% of the cruft in anything like digg.com or whatever has to be IE-switching bullshit, is my guess (speculation, never bothered to view source on it).

      But even the plugin is a pain in the ass. I'm not going to bother munging my SVG markup, just to make it work with ASV, just so that I can then have to munge all the other markup to work in IE. Screw that.

    4. Re:Well... by dr.badass · · Score: 1

      as well as Safari as soon as it gets SVG.

      Just so you know, it's in the nightlies.

      --
      Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
    5. Re:Well... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 1

      I'm keeping track of it. Wish webkit would build on linux, I don't own a mac or I'd be testing already...

    6. Re:Well... by zentigger · · Score: 1

      It's funny how quickly people will just happily download the latest plugin just because their browser popped up and told them to do it. Maybe Firefox should relase a "browser plugin" Basically, uninstall IE and replace it with firefox. I'm sure this would be quite simple to do considering how easily people can be socially engineered to click on just about anything...

      --

      the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head

    7. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What if it were possible to put porn in a relational database?


      I'd say you had too much time on your hands :p
    8. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why ask them to install it? Just install it automatically via one of the many automatic install features of Internet Explorer. ;)

  23. Don't forget bandwidth by sterno · · Score: 1

    Yeah it's not going to make much of a difference. IE will just get upgraded and people will just use it like they do IE 6. IE gained as much ground as it did because it came by default, but there's other factors to consider:

    1) Netscape's browser was not keeping up with IE
    2) Not many people had the bandwidth to download a new browser (for all I love firefox I'd never encourage my friends with modems to try downloading it)

    Frankly I think this second part is not fully appreciated in the browser war history. If it takes me a minute or two to download and install a new browser, it's more likely I'll bother to do it. Firefox has come on-line as the availability of broadband has expanded significantly making it easy for people to try it out if they hear about it.

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
    1. Re:Don't forget bandwidth by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      2) Not many people had the bandwidth to download a new browser (for all I love firefox I'd never encourage my friends with modems to try downloading it)

      One of the few good things about IE is that when you download it, what you get is a very small program, easy to get even on dial-up. Then, when it installs, it goes out to the net and gets those parts it needs and only those parts it needs from the net. With Firefox, you get the complete install program, with everything included, even parts you don't happen to require. Much harder to download if you don't have broadband. Granted, it's less of an issue now, with more and more people on broadband, but it was a nice touch.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    2. Re:Don't forget bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It takes 12min30s to download Mozilla Firefox 1.5 for Windows on a 56kbit modem.
      If you ask me, that is time well spent given the alternative cost of time you will spend maintaining a system that uses Microsoft Internet Explorer as browser.

  24. Two things have to happen.... by TodLiebeck · · Score: 1
    IE7 will matter (to me at least) only when the following two things happen:

    • CSS support becomes reasonably good.
    • IE6 is not significantly used to an extent to warrant supporting it.


    In my opinion, #1 may actually happen. Beta2 is still a long way off from having "reasonable" CSS support, but they've got close to another year to pull it off, if I'm correct in assuming that IE7 will launch with Vista.

    The second item won't happen for at least four years, assuming IE7 comes out in one year. At this point we all have plenty of historical data on the rate at which corporate networks upgrade things like web browsers. 3yrs for 90% to upgrade is probably wishful thinking.

    The reason that I believe IE7 will be significant at that point is that web development time, be it in the context of writing your personal homepage or an advanced AJAX-based framework, will take approximately 50% as long as it did when IE6 support was required.
    1. Re:Two things have to happen.... by Kelson · · Score: 1

      Apparently the current release (updated on March 20) is "layout complete" -- i.e. all the new features intended for IE7 are present -- so aside from bugs that they decide to fix, websites should appear the same in the current release as they will in the final.

      Also, my understanding is that IE7 is still scheduled for sometime this year, which means it'll arrive before Vista.

  25. Re:Asking Slashdot what they think of IE is like.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    That's actually pretty funny.

    Wa po hueh Po Tung Hwa.

  26. Firefox has already served its larger purpose by Nice2Cats · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Maybe IE 7 will win back some market share for Microsoft, maybe not. The important thing in the larger scheme is that Firefox has broken through their "mental" monopoly: Even the most clueless of my Windows-using friends has now at least heard of it and knows that there is a viable alternative to the Internet Explorer. They know that there is something called "Open Source" and that free software can be at least as good as what Microsoft is offering, if not better. Use any metaphor you want -- the wall of ignorance is breached, the dictator's iron grip broken -- it comes down to the fact that Firefox has made it just that more likely that people will even look at OpenOffice.org, VLC or Linux. Firefox could lose all of its marketshare and this would still be the case. From Microsoft's point of view, the damage is done, and IE 7 is just an attempt to limit its spread -- too little, too late.

    Which seems to be Microsoft's company motto these days...

  27. Will IE 7 have any impact? by Twilight1 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Of course it will! The real question is how much of an impact will it have? And that just depends on how fast it's moving when it hits the ground. :)

    -Twi1

  28. Re:Asking Slashdot what they think of IE is like.. by KwKSilver · · Score: 1

    More like asking bulls what they think of slaughterhouses.

    --
    If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
  29. The days of 95% share are gone (for now). by jmd! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is no IE7 for Windows 98, ME, 2000, NT or anything but Windows XP.

    There is no IE7 for Linux or UNIX.

    And perhaps most significantly, there is no IE7 for Mac. Microsoft has totally abandoned the platform. Apple having the balls the ship their OS with a non-MS browser, at the risk of damaging their sacred user experience, is responsible for the impossibility of another Microsoft lock on the web in the medium-term. (Though Apple owes a debt of gratitude to the groundbreaking Mozilla evangelism work which began the conversion of the web away from IE-only).

    Every Mac that moves off the shelves of your local, brightly colored Apple store is not just a blow to Windows, but it's a win for the accessible web, the open, standardized office suite file format, etc.

    In fact, I encourage nerds of all colors to switch, even _away from_ Linux. Massing around Apple is, in my opinion, the best way to continue to chip away at Microsoft's broad monopoly over the next few years. Linux can't do it on its own... KDE, GNOME, and 3rd party apps are still (perpetually, seemingly) not ready yet for the masses. OS X is.

    Switch! And more importantly, keep OS X in mind during your UNIX development. (Props to the Firefox team; anti-props to the OpenOffice team).

    1. Re:The days of 95% share are gone (for now). by Kelson · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is no IE7 for Windows 98, ME, 2000, NT or anything but Windows XP....

      True, assuming you mean XP and later (Windows Server 2003 isn't a big platform for web browsing, but IE7 is supported on it). Based on my site's stats (hardly scientific, I know), that limits them to an 81% maximum for now. This will grow as the remaining Win2k-and-older users drop off the radar. Whether enough people switch to offset that growth remains to be seen.

    2. Re:The days of 95% share are gone (for now). by ninja_assault_kitten · · Score: 1

      First, Linux/UNIX IE makes up about a 10th of a percent of the total browser market. 90% of the Firefox marketshare is on XP.

      Secondly regarding IE on OSX. Nobody every used it anyway. Using the Mac version of IE was like using Netscape 4.

      Third and finally. Apple doesn't owe Mozilla dick, Safari is just as capable as any IE alternative out there.

    3. Re:The days of 95% share are gone (for now). by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1, Insightful

      wow a random apple advertisment moderated to 5 what insight

      Apple marketshare has dropped for six years in a row. Since *you* positioned this as a pure percentage game (see subject), you must acknowldege that Apple's market is increasing less important to the big picture. Especially compared the heydays of IE5/Mac. Now, mod me down like good zealots.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    4. Re:The days of 95% share are gone (for now). by jmd! · · Score: 1

      > Apple marketshare has dropped for six years in a row.

      6 years in a row, ending with 2004 maybe. Have a source on this claim that the loss continues?

    5. Re:The days of 95% share are gone (for now). by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
      In fact, I encourage nerds of all colors to switch, even _away from_ Linux. Massing around Apple is, in my opinion, the best way to continue to chip away at Microsoft's broad monopoly over the next few years.


      Yes! Let's replace one abusive monopoly with another abusive monopoly! Let's not have just a software-monopoly, let's have a hardware-monopoly as well!

      I would encourage OS X-users to switch to Linux instead. That way you would make sure that no company could screw you over. And that includes Apple. Only difference between Apple and MS is that Apple has around 4% market-share, whereas MS is at 90+%.

      This isn't about "getting away from Microsoft". This is about controlling your own hardware, software and data. And if you are at the mercy of some corporation, you are not really in control. Being at the mercy of Apple is not different from being at the mercy of Microsoft.n I find it pretty naive to have some Mac-users tell others that "switch to Mac! That's a good way to screw Microsoft!". Well, thanks for the suggestion, but I do not use Linux to "screw Microsoft". I use Linux because it lets ME be in control.

      If you want to "screw Microsoft", why don't YOU switch to Linux? Seriously? Why should Linux-users switch to Mac, and not vice versa?
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    6. Re:The days of 95% share are gone (for now). by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      You're right, Apple was up a little in 05. But even so, their entire 2% marketshare is basically the margin of error when you are talking about Internet Explorer, so I think the point stands.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    7. Re:The days of 95% share are gone (for now). by Kelson · · Score: 1

      Yes, Safari is quite capable. However, the parent post was clearly talking not about the Mozilla browser, but about Mozilla evangelism .

      This is the project in which people would report websites that blocked non-IE browers, relied on IE-only technology or quirks, or made poor assumptions as to what browsers were out there (like telling a Mozilla 1.4 user to "upgrade" to Netscape 6.0). Volunteers would then contact the webmasters and encourage them to use cross-browser techniques, fix their coding errors or browser detection scripts, or whatever was necessary to get the site to work in more browsers and on more platforms than just IE6 on Windows.

      Opera has a similar program called Open the Web.

      Groups like Mozilla's Tech Evangelism, Opera's Open the Web, and the Web Standards Project have done quite a bit over the last few years to reduce the number of high-profile websites that only work in Internet Explorer, laying the groundwork to make Safari, Opera, and Firefox into viable alternatives for the average user.

    8. Re:The days of 95% share are gone (for now). by pmontra · · Score: 1

      In fact, I encourage nerds of all colors to switch, even _away from_ Linux. Massing around Apple is, in my opinion, the best way to continue to chip away at Microsoft's broad monopoly over the next few years. Linux can't do it on its own... KDE, GNOME, and 3rd party apps are still (perpetually, seemingly) not ready yet for the masses. OS X is.

      A Mac + OSX cost money, but Linux is free and I already got the PC to run it. If you want to fund your world liberation campaign and are giving me the money to buy a Mac, I'll consider "massing around Apple", otherwise I'll stick with my OS. Nothing personal, I just don't see that much value in a Mac.

  30. Latest Nightly Build? by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    I get my latest nightly build from ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nigh tly/latest-trunk/firefox-1.6a1.en-US.win32.install er.exe and it says Deer Park Alpha 2. Is there a latest nightly for Bon Echo?

  31. Bon Echo nightly builds by tepples · · Score: 1

    Is there a latest nightly for Bon Echo?

    The Firefox 2 branch plan page states that Firefox 2 (Bon Echo) development happens on the 1.8 trunk.

  32. Specialized Web Pages by duerra · · Score: 1
    web authors might once again create offensive 'please upgrade to Internet Explorer' web pages


    I don't think you're going to see this again. We can't deny, of course, that it was once this way, but the internet is quickly moving away from the "wild cowboy" days and growing up. There is a much bigger focus in general for properly formed and designed web pages (at least, when you consider what the internet once was).

    I'm not saying that you won't see a loss of functionality by not using a specific browser, but I think that seeing those kinds of extremes will be a pretty rare sight from this point on. Because really, there's a large emerging mobile market that needs to be served, too, so I think the trend of more 'professionally' designed sites will continue. There's always exceptions, but the above used to be extremely common. I don't see that happening anymore. Even if other browsers are less common, developer demand for adherence to web standards is going stronger all the time.
    --
    A community-oriented lyrics site
  33. Little more than an annoyance by Dracos · · Score: 2, Interesting

    IE7 will only be installable on Vista and XP+SP2. IE7 will also not be integrated into the underlying OS, so Joe Sixpack running XP likely won't just automagically get it as part of his bi-millenial visit to Windows Update.

    It appears that MS doesn't know how to sell Vista, and will probably have to rely on OEMs to just "make it available". The $500M marketing campaign might directly generate some retail sales, but I think it's likely that big business is starting to catch on to the FUD.

    IE7 is capable in 2006 of what most other modern browsers were capable of in 2002 (or earlier). Granted, that only means something to developers, but there are high profile ways that IE is behind the curve (tabs, anyone?).

    The fate of IE7 is directly tied to Vista, which more than likely will have a very slow uptake (slower than the 2k to XP conversion), and be based almost completely on new PC sales. I doubt is IE7 will have much more than 25% usage share 3 years after Vista is released sometime (not January... maybe June/July, in time for the back-to-school PC sales rush) next year.

    Unfortunately, this means that the decline of IE6 will be just as slow. Most developers I know now hate IE6 more than they ever hated Netscape 4. Firefox 2 is coming, Opera 9 is due soon, and Apple will likely update Safari, all before Vista is released. IE7 may get an independant release schedule, but I doubt it.

  34. running IE on a Mac... by doodlelogic · · Score: 1

    Internet Explorer came pre-installed on my Mac with OS X. Quite a pretty program on the surface but not very compatible with flashy websites.

    The version is so out of date that Microsoft's own sites tell you to switch to Safari or firefox!

    I believe there used to be a version of IE for Unix when I was at university... memory fading!

    1. Re:running IE on a Mac... by Kelson · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe there used to be a version of IE for Unix when I was at university

      A version of IE 5 was available for HP-UX and Solaris. (Not SCO Unix, not AIX, and certainly not Linux or BSD!) I don't know whether it was closer to the Windows or Mac version, but if I were to guess, I'd say Windows.

      It was discontinued in 2002.

  35. No going back by tclark · · Score: 1

    The rise of Firefox and other browsers has convinced most web developers that developing IE-specific sites is short-sighted and stupid. Sure, there are a handful who still don't get it, but they never will. IE 7 will get wide use, since many people will get it when they get a new computer. It doesn't really matter because it won't influence the work of web developers who understand the value of well made web sites.

  36. Oh Joy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about a conditional comment that redirects you to here?

  37. Don't chug the Apple koolaid too fast ... by lasindi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And perhaps most significantly, there is no IE7 for Mac. Microsoft has totally abandoned the platform. Apple having the balls the ship their OS with a non-MS browser, at the risk of damaging their sacred user experience, is responsible for the impossibility of another Microsoft lock on the web in the medium-term.

    Um, sorry, but this is not because Apple has "the balls" to do this; they had no choice. Microsoft stopped IE for Mac, not the other way around, so Apple can't do anything other than push their own browser.

    Every Mac that moves off the shelves of your local, brightly colored Apple store is not just a blow to Windows, but it's a win for the accessible web, the open, standardized office suite file format, etc.

    Really? Take a look at the office suit that Apple is promoting. Is it open or standardized? Yeah right. It's the same, closed Microsoft Office as Windows users are using (yeah I know there are differences between the Windows and Mac versions, but the point is that neither contribute to "accessibility" or "openness"). Look at the accessibility and openness Apple is pushing with their DRMed music format for iPods and so forth. Every Mac that moves off the shelf is a blow to Microsoft, but it's still a blow to openness (or at least irrelevant if it's a former MS customer).

    In fact, I encourage nerds of all colors to switch, even _away from_ Linux. Massing around Apple is, in my opinion, the best way to continue to chip away at Microsoft's broad monopoly over the next few years. Linux can't do it on its own... KDE, GNOME, and 3rd party apps are still (perpetually, seemingly) not ready yet for the masses. OS X is.

    Riiiight ... First of all, why do you suggest we "chip away at Microsoft's broad monopoly" only to set up a monopoly around Apple? Apple tries to restrict the user as much as Microsoft; I will point again to their music format. Don't kid yourself; Steve Jobs would love to be in Microsoft's position every bit as much as Bill Gates does. The difference would be that instead of only controlling the software, Apple would also control the hardware, since they build a lot more than just the OS.

    You are completely ignoring why nerds like Linux and BSD. They can have complete control of their systems. They can tinker with it all they like without trouble a Mac user would have trying to do the same thing (the Mac user lacks a lot of the source code to a lot of his software (I know about Darwin, but there's a lot more to MacOS than Darwin)). You can say, "Don't tinker with it! It's perfect the way it is." But the reason nerds tinker with computers is that they aren't perfect, they never will be, and nerds enjoy opening the hood and seeing what's inside.

    At the same time, you are also ignoring why Linux distros are "not ready yet for the masses." I have helped friends install Linux on their machines. What are the most common problems? They need still want to play Windows games, or need to run some Windows program. A Mac will have exactly the same problem. They want to use proprietary codecs for playing videos and such. Thanks to EasyUbuntu and similar scripts, this is largely solved now, but no free OS will ever be able to ship with these codecs. Apple solves this problem -- by charging you money!

    And then there are hardware support issues, especially wireless drivers. Linux has a tough time with this because wifi card manufacturers rarely make Linux drivers. But they also almost never write MacOS drivers. So how does Apple solve this problem? They don't! They just decide what hardware you can and can't run, make drivers for their small amount of hardware, and tada! you have no more hardware support problems, because you can't even *try* to support generic hardware. What's the problem here? You pay a huge amount for Apple's hand-picked hardware. If Apple simply sold OS X and you tried to use it on generic hardware, you'd have exactly the same problems (in fact, they'd probably have worse problems,

    --
    I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.
  38. Couple lines of code to fix all IE's problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    <!--[if IE]>
    <meta http-equiv="refresh"
          content="0;url=http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/">
    <![endif]-->

  39. Sigh by 4of12 · · Score: 1

    New features, standards compliance, standards non-compliance, bugs fixed, new bugs exposed in Internet Explorer 7 will have a minimal impact on its rate of market penetration relative to Mozilla Firefox.

    More than anything else, the rate of adoption of new users of Internet Explorer 7 is closely correlated to the rate at which consumers buy new PCs with Microsoft operating systems and Internet Explorer pre-installed on them.

    That's the signal. Everything else is just noise by comparison.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
  40. For the record by jmd! · · Score: 1

    I agree with most of what you say. My proposal wasn't to encourage a new monopoly around Apple. Nor was it for anything else so absolutely, incredibly unlikely and regressive. I am just in favor of a temporary massing around Apple.

    Using, developing, and evangelizing for Linux right now, other than for your own personal fun, which I can't begrudge, is equivalent to voting for a third party candidate in the U.S. The best choice? Sure. But you're "throwing your vote away." With enough people "voting" for Apple, we give them enough market force (5%, 10%... certainly no monopoly) to ensure that it's no longer a Microsoft Office world, or an IE world, or a Windows world. Developers have to consider other platforms. And if they're going to consider OS X, they may as well consider Linux too. (viz., it's a lot easier to get a "just another" platform added, than to change the "one platform" mindset).

    Your "At the same time" paragraph sums up the problem nicely. I just believe that my proposal is the only short/medium-term viable solution forward for Open Source.

    > Take a look at the office suit that Apple is promoting. Is it open or standardized? Yeah right. It's the same, closed [...]

    I maintain my claim that people using Apple's closed office suite is a win for openness. Not directly, or immediate, but an important step. If enough people use Word Perfect, Apple's suite, or Star Office, that the general perception of a .doc as a universally readable format appropriate for exchange, archiving, etc decreases, then open standards and open source eventually fill the hole. (Initially, figuratively, in perception, and eventually, literally, in open source market share).

    > Microsoft stopped IE for Mac, not the other way around

    I may have misremembered that, I won't deny. But I believe the back-room politics that went on were more complex than that. (Sources welcome.)

    1. Re:For the record by lasindi · · Score: 1

      My proposal wasn't to encourage a new monopoly around Apple.

      You might not want an Apple monopoly, but guess who does? If you think that Apple will pass up any opportunity to lock people into Macs over alternative platforms, you're deluding yourself. The only reason they can get away with it now is that Apple has as little marketshare as Linux.

      Using, developing, and evangelizing for Linux right now, other than for your own personal fun, which I can't begrudge, is equivalent to voting for a third party candidate in the U.S. The best choice? Sure. But you're "throwing your vote away."

      I would agree with you that Linux would be like a third party candidate if Apple had significantly more marketshare than Linux. But Macs do not represent nearly 50% of the country in the way a losing major party candidate does. They represent less than 5% of personal computers, with Linux not far behind. Furthermore, if Macs did have anything more than 20% of the market, you can be sure that many of Mac's porting problems would be solved by now, and the platforms that we'd need to encourage would be Linux and BSD. So, in reality, OS X and Linux are both "third party" candidates (should we say second?), since their marketshares are pretty similar.

      I maintain my claim that people using Apple's closed office suite is a win for openness. Not directly, or immediate, but an important step. If enough people use Word Perfect, Apple's suite, or Star Office, that the general perception of a .doc as a universally readable format appropriate for exchange, archiving, etc decreases, then open standards and open source eventually fill the hole. (Initially, figuratively, in perception, and eventually, literally, in open source market share).

      I can see why you're saying what you're saying, but it fails to solve the real problem. Is .doc a problem in itself? The problem is that it's closed. We need to replace that with, not another closed format, but an open one. ODF is what we ought to be pushing, not a second, equally problematic format.

      > Microsoft stopped IE for Mac, not the other way around

      I may have misremembered that, I won't deny. But I believe the back-room politics that went on were more complex than that. (Sources welcome.)

      MS stopped developing IE 5 in 2003. That is (as far as I know) all that the public knows about why it happened, so it is possible (though extremely unlikely, IMHO) that any "back-room politics" happened. Look at it from Microsoft's perspective. That browser was doing nothing for them; they weren't even actively developing IE for Windows at the time! So, they just cut the umbilical cord in 2003 and it died in 2006.

      In short, the problem here is that you think OS X is far ahead of Linux both in terms of marketshare and technology. Its marketshare is within a percentage point or two of Linux's. At the moment, I will say Apple has considerably more advanced eye-candy (i.e., a hardware-accelerated windowing system (Quartz)), but beyond that, I see little more that it offers (and Xgl will be catching up with Apple soon). Nearly every problem Linux has that Apple doesn't stem from one (or both) of two things: Apple charges (lots) of money for its computers, and Apple hand-selects the hardware that it software runs on. Linux has to deal with the same problem Microsoft has to solve (running on lots of generic hardware) without the marketshare and clout that Microsoft can use to get hardware manufacturers to develop their own drivers.

      As a Linux developer, I want to respect Mac users as well, since I know what it's like to be on the receiving end of software not being ported to your platform. However, the program I'm working on at the moment, while it has been ported from Linux to Windows (partially d

      --
      I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.