Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Releases IE7 Beta 3
Kawahee writes "Microsoft has released IE7 Beta 3 to the public. From TechNet Flash: 'As a result of customer feedback, IE7 Beta 3 contains some feature changes in addition to the planned reliability, compatibility, and security improvements. If you've previously installed a beta of IE7, you should uninstall it before installing this release.' For the first time, the Administrator's Kit for Internet Explorer 7 is also available, which is described as 'the most efficient way to deploy and manage Web-based solutions.'"
I'm sure there are improvements with this new release, but how much can you really improve upon a structurally flawed program? It's like Vista... They always tout "It's the BEST Windows EVER" and "The most SECURE OS!" and all that garbage...but what happens 2 weeks after it's public release? Flaws. Flaws, flaws, horribly unexplainable flaws that should have been caught with some basic QA *before* release.
Firefox rules. It was built from the ground up to AVOID the problems created by poor programming in IE.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
It's not really in their best interest to fully support standards that are facilitating the development of web apps which are becoming competitive with Microsoft's own products.
You have got to be fucking kidding me. There's a difference between not being perfect on the ACID test and being... well... IE. This is not even in the same ball park. Not even the same sport. Not even the same planet.
So Firefox only scored a 1500 on its SAT. IE is still wearing a helmet and drooling on itself as it takes the short bus back to Redmond. Seriously just... just don't even go there. IE is the biggest frustration on the planet right now to anyone who actually works in this industry.
The ACID test has as much bearing on real world browser usage as my opinions on foreign policy have on Mexico's actions.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
As a developer, you get the following options:
1. Develop exclusively for Internet Explorer and don't care about any other browser (fortunately this mentality is dying due to the marketshare of alternative browsers). Other browsers tend to display these sites fairly well as long as there is no IE-specific crap (ie: active x)
2. Develop a tables based design with limited CSS
3. Develop two separate sites
4. Develop to the standard and if IE can't display it properly, oh well.. (not terribly useful for most sites).
Its absolutely aggervating as a web developer to not only learn a standard and code to the standard, but end up having to learn the "IE" way and all the various hacks and workarounds (I believe Microsoft refers to this type of crap as "shims").. when working on a new layout, its not unrealistic to end up having to spend twice as long just to make a standards compliant XHTML/CSS design work in IE.. Its a shame because *most* developers simply can't devote the time ($$) and as a result, webpages are not standards compliant, less accessible and harder to maintain.
Buddy, you gotta lay off the Redmond kool-aid. A true baseline for a browser that's integrated into the the OS is...nothing. Null. The empty set.
There should be no web browser that's integrated into the OS. There are many reasons for this, but I'll name one: security. Browsing the web is an inherently insecure operation. Why would you (for any technical reason) integrate that function into the core of your OS?
You wouldn't. IE is integrated into Windows for marketing reasons. Until that integration is done away with, we know MS isn't serious about all their security talk.
Would you integrate your digestive system into your hands? Eating would be so easy--you'd just have to touch stuff! What that's? Sometimes you touch stuff that isn't safe to eat? Here, put this 'patch' on.
Comparing anything to perfection is a false dichotomy because nothing is perfect. The question the grandparent poster is asking is better answered by asking oneself cui bono—who benefits? Then you'll see that as long as a proprietor can keep open standards from taking hold, that proprietor benefits. If the most popular browser were to become a free software browser, such as Firefox, you'd see Microsoft change their browser implementation to better conform to standards because they wouldn't be able to compete with broken-by-design software.
Digital Citizen
A "baseline" browser would be standards compliant and minimal, which IE7 is not.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
That is just about the most fucked up analogy I've ever seen.
First of all, "real world browser usage" is some sort of average of what happens when people use browsers on internet connected computers in "the real world", which I guess means "not in a laboratory" or something. Philosophy professors would fall down in seizures if forced to listen to something that poorly defined. "Mexico" is a place. The connection here is well beyond me.
Now, are you saying that the Acid test doesn't effect "real world browser usage"? Because what does affecting "real world browser usage" even mean?
Perhaps you mean that most browser makers don't shoot for acid test compliance, and therefore browser users aren't affected by this. You are wrong, since basically all non-ie browsers are working toward acid test compliance, and khtml/konqueror/safari already pass. So you would be stupid if you thought this, and I'm certainly not calling you a stupid idiot.
Maybe you mean that the CSS tested by the acid test doesn't represent what you actually come across on the web. Now, this is accurate, but it may be a self fulfilling prophesy. Bad CSS support causes simple CSS usage, because people can't trust browsers to correctly render CSS the way it is written if they make it complex. IE has bad CSS support, therefore in "real world browser usage" people don't come across very much complex CSS. You conclude that the Acid test is irrelevant, because it test something that doesn't come up in practice. But as you see, that 'practice' is a result of the very bad CSS support the Acid test is trying to help browser makers correct.
Sometimes when you use a product so much you get used to its quirks and forget that its broken. The first moment he uses IE he should be able to immediatly see problems that over developers have forgotten that are there.
"Go into the hall of mirrors and have a bloody hard look at yourself" - HG Nelson
This isn't "Score:2, Funny, but rather "5, Insightful".
Really, the ACID test is about using techniques as complicated (and pointless) as they get to break browsers, while real web dev is about making sites that work.
A browser that passes the test is not automatically better than one that doesn't.
I saw this earlier when I was downloading the IE 6 Administrator's Kit. I searched around for almost an hour trying to find a good, old-fashioned changelog listing the changes since Beta 2. Anyone found that yet?
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
It's good that MS is taking a more serious approach to security with IE and Windows Vista. But really, how much can they do when 2 security holes open up for every one they patch?
If they were serious about security they would spend some of their billions of dollars on hiring really good security people and implementing their suggestions. Little things like making the browser run in userspace. Implementing zones or jails, and not requiring local services to run on the network for normal operation. These are fundamental security improvements that could be made. Implementing them would reduce the number of functional exploits, instead of just trying to patch them all. MS is not interested in doing any of this. Instead, they plan to start making money selling antivirus signatures to remove the malware their holes let into your system. Just because a press release says, "we're serious about security" does not mean it is true in any way.
No, having IE come on a system at all is bad, as it encourages developers to continue to use Microsoft-only hacks that blocks users of other browsers from enjoying the sites. Take for example, me: I work for the University of Texas at Austin Liberal Arts IT department developing websites. Last year, I spent a semester building a website for learning American Sign Language for the students and for anyone in the general public who wished to use the video resources as a study guide. Unfortunately, I spent more time making the site work on IE because of its failed standards compliance than I did on actually building the standards-compliant site. To top it off, all the work I put into making it work in IE only made it work in IE 6! It will still fail in IE 7, so when users upgrade, I'll have to make updates to a static site! This has wasted my time, taxpayers' money, students' chances at education; and has harmed the ASL community because it is one less resource (and boy, is it a good one!) for ASL-as-a-second-language people to use in their studies. A standards-compliant page is necessary in order to support alternative browsers and provide a common page that, in theory, all browsers (hopefully IE one day) will display correctly. I can't just code to IE because, as we are seeing, IE changes; standards remain the same (margins are margins are margins, not padding).
In short, the existence of IE on users' computers hurts society economically and educationally.
I think you're using different meanings for "integrated." You mean firmly entrenched with tendrils running throughout the system. I suspect the GP post meant pre-installed (i.e. integrated in the installer and/or the user experience).
There are a number of reasons that some web browser should be pre-installed with a new computer or OS install. The foremost is this: A whole lot of software -- browsers included -- is distributed online these days. A built-in browser of some sort is necessary just to get your browser of choice. Care to guess how many Slashdotters have used IE primarily to download Firefox?
You could, of course, get by with a minimal browser like Off By One (and we're back to the WordPad vs. Word analogy), as long as it has the ability to fill out forms and download files.
The alternative is to rely on CD-ROM distribution just to get online. (And don't suggest command-line FTP as the way to let people download Firefox/IE/Opera/what-the-hell-ever. You can figure it out, I can figure it out, but most people don't want to mess around with the command-line when there's a simpler way to do it.)
On the other hand, if you have, say, 5 common browsers (Safari, IE, Opera, Firefox, and Konq.) which all render roughly the same except for one (IE), can you really say that the odd man out is the "defacto standard?" Do you compare raw number of users or number of products? When a web developer wants to make a web site which display correctly on all browsers, IE is the one that causes most of the problems. Where is the "defacto standards" in that?
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
All I really meant by it is that ACID2 (mis)uses obscure techniques to deliberately break browsers. It has no bearing on how people actually make webpages, and the techniques it does use are so out of line with the norm that we don't even need them.
It's simply not a grave situation. It would be nice if all browsers worked the same, but I'm not an idealist by profession, and I certainly don't give additional point to things based on their obscurity. That's one geek trait I've never picked up.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
And then, whichever two they pick, they'll still get yelled at for lacking the third.
I suppose it is safe to assume your clients don't mind losing 85-95% of potential hits to their competitor's IE-friendly web site.
You missed an option:
5. Develop to standards and ignore IE.
I know, I know, it's not an option for everybody. I'm lucky enough to work in an all-Mac company, so I've been able to ignore IE entirely for the internal sales web application I'm working on. It was a moment of pure joy when I realised I don't have to worry about IE this time. I was able to strip out a load of JavaScript and replaced it with simpler and easier to maintain CSS2 rules. And my code and layouts work first time!
It's not an option for most people, but when you have the chance to do ignore IE, you realise what a terrible cancer it is on web development productivity.
If your comment title says 'Re: Foo', I'm not likely to read it.
Yes, the ultimate test of a web browser is whether the page renders and works correctly. However, the closer browsers are to meeting the W3C standards, the less likely it is that a page will work in one browser and not another.
Oh, and for the record, a lot of tests are not "complicated and pointless". Sure, there's some stuff you probably won't take advantage of, but theres a lot of stuff in there that would make web developers' lives easier should browsers ever consistently support it. I suggest you read the Acid2 Guided Tour.
The only reason I have to believe it is still not working is because either IE engineers are absurdly incompetent or MS does not want it to work.
You do realize how rediculous that statement is, right? It just makes you look stupid. If you want to bash MS and make stuff up to do so, feel free, but at least be a little less obvious about it.
If you have a bug, post a sample of the HTML here along with a screen shot (or detailed description) of the behavior your seeing. If I can verify it I will certainly make sure it gets into the bug tracker.
My hunch is that this you will fail to do this either by not responding at all, or by making up some reason why you can't post some example HTML.
This is a Very Bad Idea, it sounds OK but its not;
Why? Because if what you describe were to happen then everyone would be playing catch up to Microsoft all of the time. The situation you describe would give IE a huge advantage over every other browser as IE would always be 100% compliant, and all the others would not be. Every change in IE would have to be implemented in other browsers after the IE release. Not to mention that Microsoft could add features that are proprietary or subject to a software patent and therefore not even implementable in other browsers. That is no basis for a 'standard', and why wouldn't Microsoft do this? After all it would give them dominance. It would have the potential to destroy any competition to IE, and give Microsoft carte blanche to dictate the future of the web. This is all bad, even if you love Microsoft.
Lets not even get into the fact that it would also involve Microsoft issuing clear documentation to their competitors as to what they have implemented in the first instance, which is unlikely. Now add to that the fact that some of IE's rendering quirks are as a result of bugs. Some are so well known that people write tutorials and how to's and offer code to cut-and-paste so you can fix issues without even the slightest inkling of what the problem is. More over some of these bugs have been fixed over time... So am I to understand that other browsers and their development teams should actually implement features in their browser that are bugs in another? Ridiculous.
What about issues where responses to certain code open up security vulnerabilities in IE, should they also be implemented in other browsers so that everyone gets a uniform experience? Didn't think so.
The W3C provides a set of standards that should be implementable by everyone, people making browsers should be using them and people coding websites should be using them. That way there are no problems for either party, and new features can be added in due time with due consultation of all the interested parties.
I will add however that if you are producing a web page and your code is 100% W3C compliant you usually only have a few - well documented issues to resolve. The real problems with how pages look in different browsers occurs when the page author is not 100% W3C compliant, and a page may then look great in one browser and terrible in another.