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.'"

26 of 277 comments (clear)

  1. Favorite release note... by peipas · · Score: 5, Funny

    "If Flight Simulator 2004 stops responding after you have installed Internet Explorer 7 Beta, find the oleacc.dll file in the Flight Simluator folder and rename it to oleacc.old. Then restart Flight Simulator."

    1. Re:Favorite release note... by Mayhem178 · · Score: 5, Funny

      'the most efficient way to deploy and manage Web-based solutions.'

      Typos. Let me fix that for you.

      'the most efficient way to destroy and mangle Web-based solutions.

      --

      "You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles

    2. Re:Favorite release note... by JudasBlue · · Score: 4, Informative

      This dll hooks the Flight Simulator app into the Active Accessiblity API which provides features for people with disabilities. While I haven't coded to the MS platform specifically for a very long time, unless something major has changed, it wouldn't be odd at all for parts of that API to be actually buried in the innards of IE. A very annoying MS trait, that; to bury parts of their APIs all over the place. Many things can be said of MS as a development platform, most of them bad from my perspective, but one thing it most definitely isn't is orthangonal.

      --

      7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

  2. "planned reliability" by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sorry, but that gave me a chuckle. Reliability, compatibility and security are still in beta.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  3. Let's see. by Inoshiro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    IE 7 still did not correctly implement the box model, positioning, all CSS1, all CSS2, or any CSS3. The same IE-specific parsing bugs for CSS are in place in IE 7.

    At this point, you have to ask; is it that the people at Microsoft are incapable of producing a specs-compliant rendering engine (when every one else in the world can?), that they are roped by backwards compatibility, or that they think people will see IE 6 + tabs as "good enough"?

    It's to the point where every site I make has 2 code paths: not IE, and the IE-specific overrides (up to an additional 20kb per page!).

    --
    --
    Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
    1. Re:Let's see. by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Yeah, but let's not pretend that everyone else is able to meet specs and standards perfectly either. Try the ACID test with Firefox sometime and you'll see that MS aren't the only ones with problems in this area.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:Let's see. by Tweekster · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think if a developer is working on ACID test conformity they are pretty close. Microsoft isnt even close to that point of worrying about that yet and looks like they wont ever be.

      --
      The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
    3. Re:Let's see. by binary+paladin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Let's see. by heinousjay · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    5. Re:Let's see. by naelurec · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Yeah, but let's not pretend that everyone else is able to meet specs and standards perfectly either.
      Yah but I can develop a XHTML/CSS website to the standard, using one of the mentioned browsers (firefox, mozilla, konqueror, safari, opera, etc..) and when I view that website in any other standards compliant browser on various operating systems, it looks VERY close if not the same. Then I view it in Internet Explorer and absolutely cringe.

      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 .. basically, throw out lots of accessibility related formatting, but limit overall development time. Seems like most sites favor this method.

      3. Develop two separate sites .. do browser detection (yuck) and serve up (at minimum) a separate CSS doc for Internet Explorer than for all other current browsers. Works ok until you realize the incompatibilities between different versions of IE and end up having to do version checks and maintain many separate layouts.

      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.
    6. Re:Let's see. by Kelson · · Score: 4, Informative
      I'm pretty sure Opera 9 does. It passes the ACID2 test.

      Repeat after me: Acid2 is not a rigorous CSS compliance test. Passing Acid2 does not mean you support every aspect of some version of CSS. It was designed to catch a number of aspects that most browsers did not support as of a year ago.

      I'll agree that Opera 9 supports more of CSS2.1 than Firefox 1.5, but I believe it also supports more of CSS 2.1 than Safari 2, which also passes Acid2.

      As for "Where's Netscape?" -- present-day Netscape is a fusion of IE and Firefox. It uses the IE's Trident engine on some pages and Mozilla's Gecko engine on others. Previous versions of Netscape that have enough CSS support to consider were also Gecko-based.

    7. Re:Let's see. by bunratty · · Score: 4, Informative

      But the web is supposed to be a cross-platform environment from the ground up. For the most part, I treat it that way, and just let pages look suboptimal in IE. If someone complains how a page looks in IE, I just "dumb down" the page so IE can understand how to format it better.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  4. *Yawn* by TheDarkener · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  5. Uninstall by jeffy210 · · Score: 5, Funny
    "you should uninstall it before installing this release"


    Wait, wait, wait. A version of IE you can actually uninstall? Did I miss something here?
    --
    ------
    "And may your days be long upon the earth."
    1. Re:Uninstall by tehshen · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's a bug, it'll be removed from the Vista version.

      --
      Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
  6. It's not that bad by edmicman · · Score: 4, Informative

    I know the Slashdot crowd will poo-poo on this release, the zealots will shout for their favorite browser, etc. And for the most part, they're right. The media seems oblivious to this, but I've stopping thinking of IE7 as a competitor to all of the other browsers. Instead, I see it as what a baseline browser that's integrated into the OS should be.

    Yes, IE7 is basically where Firefox and everyone else was at years ago. Yes, it has tons of room for improvement. But for the unwashed masses out there, having a PC that comes with IE7, or being forced to upgrade as part of Windows Update is a good thing. Sure, I could install Windows from scratch, open up Write, and begin my novel. Or, if I want and need more features, I can choose from Word, Open Office, WordPerfect, etc. Same goes for the browsers. IE7 will give the average user a higher starting point, but the alternatives will always do the job better, and I don't think IE7 will stop the adoption that Firefox is seeing. Who is seriously going to go back to IE after using and customizing Firefox to how they want it?

    I use Firefox at home, and partially at work, but I also have to use IE for our Intranet development (it's easier for now, and they're too ingrained to IE for me to start using FF full time. If something doesn't work right, I'd rather not have to tell the "well, it works right in FF, it's your problem"....anyway....). I grabbed the IE7b3 yesterday and have found it leaps and bounds better that IE7b2. Pages load faster (still not as fast as FF), the UI is snappier (still not as snappy as FF), and some of the quirks of before have been fixed. It's better than IE7b2, and tons better than IE6. Is it going to replace FF at all? Heck, no.

    1. Re:It's not that bad by mcmonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Instead, I see it as what a baseline browser that's integrated into the OS should be.

      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.

    2. Re:It's not that bad by misleb · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I know the Slashdot crowd will poo-poo on this release, the zealots will shout for their favorite browser, etc. And for the most part, they're right. The media seems oblivious to this, but I've stopping thinking of IE7 as a competitor to all of the other browsers. Instead, I see it as what a baseline browser that's integrated into the OS should be.


      A "baseline" browser would be standards compliant and minimal, which IE7 is not.

      -matthew
      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    3. Re:It's not that bad by TheoMurpse · · Score: 4, Insightful
      But for the unwashed masses out there, having a PC that comes with IE7, or being forced to upgrade as part of Windows Update is a good thing. Sure, I could install Windows from scratch, open up Write, and begin my novel.
      Wrong. Your analogy would only be accurate if Write took random (but not all!) letters you typed and converted them to leet. Then it would do font sizes wrong so that if you opened it up in OpenOffice or even Word the font sizes would be different, and the layout would be completely screwed up. However, because the average user has a great baseline, they wouldn't feel the need to upgrade to Word. Then, when they passed on the documents to other people who opened them with standards-compliant word processors (observing accurate measurements and font sizes) the documents would be screwed up, and decide it must be their word processor's fault, since "my coworker would never do something that stupid as type in leet in a too-large font size".

      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.
  7. IE 7 is a Major Improvement by ThinkFr33ly · · Score: 5, Informative

    The IE 7 team has talked in length about the changes to the rendering engine and the decisions they've made.

    Some particularly interesting posts are:

    Standards and CSS in IE
    Improving the CSS 2.1 strict parser for IE 7
    Layout Complete Announced at MIX06
    What's New for CSS in Beta 2 Preview
    The prolog, strict mode, and XHTML in IE
    All your are belong to us
    Call to action: The demise of CSS hacks and broken pages.

    It's not perfect, but it's a major improvement in basically every way over IE 6.

    1. Re:IE 7 is a Major Improvement by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's not perfect, but it's a major improvement in basically every way over IE 6.

      Wow, seven different press releases/comments from MS. Well, someone just installed it on a test box, so let me take a look at the HTML I'm outputting. Golly looks just the same as IE6. IE fails to show either the CSS or XHTML formatting it failed to before. Now lets take a look in some other browsers. Firefox works. Opera works. Safari works.

      They can talk all they want, but they still haven't managed to do anything. Talk is cheap. Luckily, as this is content that only network security experts will be looking at, nobody cares is it is unformatted for IE users since none of them would touch the bloody thing.

  8. Cui bono? Who benefits? by jbn-o · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:FUCK! by NickFitz · · Score: 5, Informative

    IE will use the W3C box model if you include an appropriate DOCTYPE in your page (as per the standards) thereby triggering "strict" rendering mode. The box model is only broken if you use"quirks" mode rendering.

    This has been the case since IE5.5.

    It's also how Firefox, Opera and Safari - and probably every other CSS-supporting browser of any note - cope with all the malformed HTML/CSS out there.

    --
    Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
  10. Re:Vista? by NickFitz · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to the announcement on the IE Team's blog:

    This beta does not install on Windows Vista Beta 2; a new version of IE7+ in Windows Vista will be available with the next public Windows Vista release soon.

    --
    Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
  11. The ACID Test by ThinkFr33ly · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here is what Microsoft has to say about IE 7 and the ACID test:

    "...I've seen a lot of comments asking if we will pass the Acid2 browser test published by the Web Standards Project when IE7 ships. I'll go ahead and relieve the suspense by saying we will not pass this test when IE7 ships. The original Acid Test tested only the CSS 1 box model, and actually became part of the W3C CSS1 Test Suite since it was a fairly narrow test - but the Acid 2 Test covers a wide set of functionality and standards, not just from CSS2.1 and HTML 4.01, selected by the authors as a "wish list" of features they'd like to have. It's pointedly not a compliance test (emphasis added) (from the Test Guide: "Acid2 does not guarantee conformance with any specification"). As a wish list, it is really important and useful to my team, but it isn't even intended, in my understanding, as our priority list for IE7."

  12. No, it doesn't by Kelson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Changes to IE7's rendering engine have been primarily in fixing bugs and catching up to established standards like CSS. came out of WhatWG (or, more precisely, came out of work Apple was doing to make Dashboard widgets possible, then submitted to WhatWG), which, so far, the IE team appears to be ignoring.

    Since WhatWG's work does seem to be catching on, with Opera, Firefox and Safari all implementing features and not just talking about it, there might be some pressure on Microsoft to start adding support in IE 7.5 or IE 8.