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.
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
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.