Internet Explorer 7 Beta 3 Reviewed

An anonymous reader writes to mention a review of the latest Beta release for Internet Explorer 7 on Paul Thurrott's SuperSite. From the article: "While it's not enough to make me switch from Firefox yet--I still love certain Firefox features such as inline search--it's no longer an object of ridicule either. IE 7.0 Beta 3 includes huge functional and security advantages of IE 6 and is an absolute no brainer for anyone choosing to stick with IE. If you are an IE user, head over to the Microsoft Web site and pick up IE 7.0 Beta 3 today." ZDNet has some first impressions of the release as well.

Comments

a finer compliment

[yagu]

From the article (emphasis mine): "While it's not enough to make me switch from Firefox yet--I still love certain Firefox features such as inline search--it's no longer an object of ridicule either. "

A finer compliment (no longer an object of ridicule) couldn't be had. This from Thurrott, a Microsoft sychophant. So, it's come to this, Microsoft feints and jabs, feints and jabs, and after ten years (more?) of internet browsing that's how high the bar is set for them. I can't wait for Vista.

Re:a finer compliment

[heinousjay]

Well, to be fair (since you said 10 years or more) there was a period of time from the release of IE 4 to the release of 5.5 that it was essentially the best browser available. It's only since development basically stopped that it has been trounced so hard.

Re:a finer compliment

[xwizbt]

I couldn't agree more. I read through the whole article, then I read through the articles I was directed to read before reading the article, and then I realised how much the author wanted it all to be beautiful and good. He really wants Microsoft to produce something wonderful, something that will stop Firefox dead. And by the end of it I was wondering why I was bothering to read it. "I was talking to the team...' - great. Well done. Tell them not to bother.

Re:a finer compliment

[Bogtha]

Or, to put it another way, as long as there was viable competition, Microsoft continually improved their browser. When Internet Explorer achieved its objective of killing the competition, Microsoft cancelled development and left it to rot. Now there is viable competition again, Microsoft is scrambling to get back in the game.

This is precisely why monopolies abusing their position to kill the competition is so harmful and why "it's a better product" is no defence.

Re:a finer compliment

[vistic]

i believe you meant "sycophant"... and not "sychophant", which is a crazy elephant... not to be confused with "psychopants" which were a 70's fad.

Re:a finer compliment

[heinousjay]

Oh, it's still a viable defense. History has shown they didn't kill anything with IE. They just laid a serious beating down.

Re:a finer compliment

[professorhojo]

until they fix the box model, it still remains "an object of ridicule" to me... :(

Re:a finer compliment

[malkavian]

There were a few browsers around in the 'Browser Wars' timeframe. The most common of which was Netscape. And Netscape was a 'Pay For' browser. In much the same way that Opera is now.
Microsoft basically cut the rug from under that. By dumping a product with the OS. In '98 and beyond, everyone that bought a PC already had a browser in. By putting the cost of the browser in with the OS, you'd already paid to have IE with your machine. Netscape didn't have a look in. So, in other words to get Netscape, you'd have to buy two browsers (if you'd bought windows). First IE, which was paid for in the OS price, then adding Netscape on top (if you bought the properly licensed version).
With revenues cut off at the knees, the company couldn't afford to throw money at research and development the way MS could (people were still buying Windows, so they were still selling browsers by default). So, the inevitable decline went on. As a company, you can't fight the bottomless purse (which is what MS had to fund their browser with, funding it from their profitable OS & Office side) who is dumping product for free.
They killed Netscape the company stone dead. It was sold eventually for a fraction of what it was worth as an open market company in a competitive environment.
And it's been languishing ever since.
Firefox, as an open source project, and an incredibly successful one, can compete on price, as it doesn't require the kind of funding that Netscape did as a company.
Opera does a good job of keeping it's brower around, but still, it's marginalised by MS having the browser in the OS, and also by Firefox. It's a hard fight to keep that running.
MS killed a lot of things. Jobs, tax revenues, competition. And the other browsers. It wasn't a beating, it was scorched earth policy. Nothing survives (even their own browser stagnated, thus, marking the segment of the market as 'dead').
But like all scorched earth, in time, shoots grow again, and eventually an ecosystem can develop once more (Firefox, Opera etc).
We just see if MS gets to play the same cards again this time round.

Re:a finer compliment

[clontzman]

And Netscape was a 'Pay For' browser. In much the same way that Opera is now.

Netscape was licensed as a 'pay for' browser, but it was purely by license. Most people (and businesses) ran the freely downloadable version and very, very few people ever paid for Netscape (unless they bought it with a book). It's like saying that WinZip is a 'pay for' product -- what you're saying is factual, but in practice most people who use it aren't paying customers.

Netscape's business model was to sell server software, not browsers. IIS and Apache did them more damage than IE did.

Also, Opera's completely free now.

Re:a finer compliment

[Unknown Poltroon]

That reminds me, i need to send winzip some money. 568 days and counting.

Re:a finer compliment

[kubevubin]

Microsoft sycophant? You obviously haven't read some of his reviews. Despite what you may think, not all of his outlooks on various Microsoft products are positive.

Re:a finer compliment

[westlake]

Firefox, as an open source project, and an incredibly successful one, can compete on price, as it doesn't require the kind of funding that Netscape did as a company.

In March 2006, Weblogs, Inc. founder Jason Calacanis reported a rumor on his blog that Mozilla Corporation gained $72M during the previous year, mainly thanks to the Google search box in the Firefox browser...The rumor was later addressed by Christopher Blizzard, a member of the Mozilla board, who wrote on his blog that "it's not correct, though not off by an order of magnitude." Mozilla Corporation

The Mozilla Foundation began with Netscape's IP and a substantial contribution of corporate cash and services from AOL. There are clear parallels with OpenOffice.org.

I suspect if you opened the books, you'd find that Firefox needs the same level of funding as Netscape.

By dumping a product with the OS

The web browser has become a standard part of an OS distribution intended for non-technical end users. Microsoft made the first move and most decisively.

There were losers, of course. The long-forgotten would-be alternative browsers from Delrina, Quarterdeck and a dozen others. The hometown BBS. AOL. Compuserve. IRC. Usenet.

But there are also winners when every PC has the hardware and software needed to connect to the net.

Re:a finer compliment

[fermion]

The blanket statement 'best' without clarification is often an overstatement of fact. From around 1996 onward, MS IE was and is the best browser if the markup is generated by MS web generators or it the code is specifically hackedto work in IE. In other words, if the content is not meant to be a generalized web page, but a front end to a resource, then IE is going to the best solution. This has not changed. IE is still the best front end to MS generated content and specific applications.

What has changed is that there are enough problems so that MS IE is no longer the best web browser, and I would argue that it was never the best web browser, becuae it never played well nor failed gracefully in the general web environment. I say this as a person that started on Mosaic, moved to netscape, then Opera, then Camino. I only use IE for certain 'safe' spaces that require IE. Except in few cases, I generally do not give my money to companies that write only for IE, because if they can't write an a page that works in any broweser, how responsible can they be. For instance, Amazon has always worked in anything I can throw at it.

So, in the sense that most people were introduced to the web on MS IE, and most people think the web is MS IE, and most people need at least one MS IE specific web site, and most people are not going to understand that they need one browser for an application front in used when browsing safe sites, and another for the general web, then in this sense MS IE has been, is, and probably will continue to be the best browser. Especially since most people think that at one time it was the best, and wrote borked code to run with it.

Re:a finer compliment

[jaiyen]

Indeed, that was my first thought too. If you read his reviews of some of the Vista builds, it's pretty clear he's not shy to criticse Microsoft products when he thinks they deserve it. E.g.

Where Vista Fails I'll leave a fuller examination of Vista's broken promises for a later date. For now, let's look at the most current builds we do have--build 5308 and 5342--and see where Vista just completely blows it. As with the broken promises, Vista's failures are legion, but I'll just focus on a few examples here and leave the full list for a later time.

Not exactly the words of a Microsoft sycophant!

Re:a finer compliment

[gkhan1]

Also, Opera's completely free now.

Well, it's not free free, it's just gratis. You know, speech/beer?

Re:a finer compliment

[man_of_mr_e]

Uhh.. dude. The box model has been fixed for 5 years. IE6's box model, running in strict mode, is standard compliant.

The quicks mode box model will, by definition, always be non-standard, because that's there for compatibility. Want a compliant box model, make sure the browser is running in strict mode.

How strange...

[scgops]

...to see an article on /. saying something positive about a Microsoft product.

I guess we'll start seeing flames any minute now...

Re:How strange...

[ZakuSage]

Yep.

Re:How strange...

[wordisms]

You wanna hear something strange? Firefox is my default browser, so in IE7b3, when I click on a bookmark or enter a URL into the address bar, IE7 actualy calls Firefox to retrieve the page. Bizarre!!!

Anyone have

[T-Ranger]

A summary of the standards that IE7 can/will support? "Better CSS 2" just isnt all that helpful.

Re:Anyone have

[aymanh]

Someone linked to this list in a previous discussion, one of my favorite quotes:

Obviously, we have heard the feedback asking us to be more standards-compliant in our rendering behavior. We must balance this ask with the need of our customers (and end users) to have their pages not be broken. To find a balance we introduced a strict mode in IE6 that lets authors opt in into the more standards compliant rendering (and, if you're putting in a modern DOCTYPE declaration, you're being opted in automatically). Pages authored under non-strict mode (or "quirks mode") will not change behavior in IE7 - so the fixes we've done to be more CSS compliant won't appear under quirks mode.

So wannabe web designers will still be able to create broken pages and get away with it on IE6 AND IE7.

Re:Anyone have

[marcello_dl]

Ha! I know the answer, it will have 100% support of:
- Microsoft HTML(tm)
- Microsoft CSS4(tm)
- Microsoft XHTML(tm)
- Microsoft XForms and ActiveX and other eXotic eXtensions.

Re:Anyone have

[Jugalator]

Microsoft XForms and ActiveX and other eXotic eXtensions.

Like XPS?
Or maybe XAML?

Yes, it's a bit funny, especially since those two technologies are definitely something IE 7 might have integrated support for.

Re:Anyone have

[rtilghman]

I haven't tested Beta3, but without looking I can tell you that the standards support is relatively unchanged since Beta2. The CSS team for IE7 has stated, point blank, that virtually no further changes will be made to the engine on this front. A freaking catastrophe.

Why is this a nightmare? In order to avoid unnecessary workarounds MS eliminated ALL (yes, ALL) the workarounds used by client side devs to solve the core issues with regard to how MS renders CSS and HTML. This includes things like the guillotene bug (where content and images inside a floated box just disappear enitely), etc. However, THEY DIDN'T FIX ANY OF THE BUGS.

This means that we're now going to be headed back to the days when we have to render separately for different browsers, meaning XSLT is going to see a resurgence, costs are going to double, and folks are going to have to go back and recode all their existing apps so they render correctly in IE7.

Welcome to the wonderful world of IE development. By incompetent retards, for incompetent retards, led by a visionary bonobo chimp.

-rt

Re:Anyone have

[Anonymous Coward]

So wannabe web designers will still be able to create broken pages and get away with it on IE6 AND IE7.

Gecko, Presto and KHTML also have a quirks mode. It's not going to go away from any browser, including all mobile ones (coincidentally, most mobile phone browsers, sans Opera, treat xhtml as text/html).

Re:Anyone have

[0racle]

Because the correct way of doing things would be break every site in existance that was targeted to the de facto web browser standard.

Re:Anyone have

[teknomage1]

I think the customers he's referring to are users of Microsoft Frontpage.

Re:Anyone have

[Jugalator]

Yep, see also Firefox and Opera for more examples of this mindset. I think it's a decent solution. Those not including a DOCTYPE were hardly understanding exactly what they were coding for anyway, and then it's a pretty darn tough job for a web browser to act a mind reader.

Of course, the Lawful Evil solution would be to pop up a message saing "Invalid HTML document" if no DOCTYPE was present.

... and watch your browser's usage share plummet. :-p

Re:Anyone have

[spectre_240sx]

Those sites targeted towards IE probably aren't going to bother with a doctype. Leave those without a doctype rendered in the old way as they have done. What they need to do is update the strict mode to todays standards.

Re:Anyone have

[DavidTC]

You're looking at this the wrong way.

When people bitch that Microsoft-created workarounds for Microsoft-created bugs and Microsoft-created rendering brokenness no long work in Microsoft browsers, thus exposing the Microsoft-created bugs and Microsoft-created rendering brokenness to the world, be sure to explain the situation very very slowly, putting the word 'Microsoft' in there as much as possible.

And then offer them Firefox, which, amazingly, just does everything correctly.

Seriously, as a web designer, I'm glad they're complete fucking morons at Microsoft. It really shows the dangers of coding to pretend MS standards instead of actual ones. Don't work around their damn bugs, expecially not using other bugs. Make the page correctly. If people complain, tell them their browser must be broken, and they should contact whoever provided it. (Hey, it's true.)

Re:Anyone have

[Helldesk Hound]

> This means that we're now going to be headed back to the days
> when we have to render separately for different browsers,
> meaning XSLT is going to see a resurgence, costs are going to
> double, and folks are going to have to go back and recode all
> their existing apps so they render correctly in IE7.

It doesn't mean that at all.

Simply continue to produce standards compliant websites, and if you get a person visiting who is using a broken browser simply inform them of the fact that their browser is broken and give them a list of properly working browsers with URLs for them to click on.

IOW, don't accept that you have to code for a broken browser.

IMHO, coding for standards (rather than for particular broken browsers) is the ONLY acceptable option.

Re:Anyone have

[Murdoc]

"- Microsoft XForms and ActiveX and other eXotic eXtensions."

But not Xwindows. :(
(Oh, the irony!)

Re:Anyone have

[VGPowerlord]

Simply continue to produce standards compliant websites, and if you get a person visiting who is using a broken browser simply inform them of the fact that their browser is broken and give them a list of properly working browsers with URLs for them to click on.

I'm all for this idea... however, I doubt my clients would be. You know, the people with money.

Re:Anyone have

[VGPowerlord]

That's funny, they claimed to have fixed a number of bugs.

Not that I'm pleased with IE, as they've fixed the Star-HTML Hack while other bugs not mentioned in the IE Blog still remain.

Re:Anyone have

[Helldesk Hound]

>> Simply continue to produce standards compliant websites, and if you get a person visiting
>> who is using a broken browser simply inform them of the fact that their browser is broken
>> and give them a list of properly working browsers with URLs for them to click on.
>
> I'm all for this idea... however, I doubt my clients would be. You know, the people with
> money.

Well what does the professional in you say? Code sites that comply with published standards? or code sites that have nasty hacks to cope with broken browsers?

We've come too far with standards compliance merely to give-in to the non-compliance of a single solitary broken browser.

Nautilus works.
Konquoror works.
Firefix works.
Opera - works.
Microsoft Internet Explorer - doesn't work.

(and that's not counting the Apple browser(s) of which I don't know enough to comment.

Re:Anyone have

[tsa]

That doesn't allways work. I know a few people who don't want to use FF because 'everything that is not MS is crap'. Meaning they are reluctant to try it because they don't know it. Which is very common in humans.

Re:Anyone have

[malakai]

Why is this a nightmare? In order to avoid unnecessary workarounds MS eliminated ALL (yes, ALL) the workarounds used by client side devs to solve the core issues with regard to how MS renders CSS and HTML.

Wow, you spun that in a unique manner. The fact is MS didn't "eliminate the workarounds" they "FIXED" the CSS parsing bugs. And they added support for additional selectors IE didn't use to have. People previously used those BUGS to trick IE to parse or not parse specific CSS code. This was simply a poor hack. Worse, there was never any reason to use CSS selector bugs to hack IE into submission. MS since IE5 days has given developers coditional comments capability.

The P.I.E guys know this, and have already updated to use the legitimate method (CC) for dealing with CSS quirks in IE 5, 5.5 and 6.

Re:Anyone have

[Makawity]

The word "professional" has this funny meaning of doing something as a profession. That usually means "for money". So as a professional, you listen to needs of the
people with money, because that's what you do for a living.

-m.

Re:Anyone have

[man_of_mr_e]

Apart from the fact that you're grossly wrong about fixing bugs (They've fixed a ton of them, including the Guilotene bug which you claim isn't fixed, which was fixed back in beta 1 http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2005/07/28/ie7_c ss_upda/ ), the issue with fixing the css parsing bugs is that yes, they are bugs and should be fixed. Need to target IE specifically? Use conditional comments.

This is really only going to be a problem with people that were using strict doctypes and hacks and may have one of the few remaining issues bug issues, which aren't very many. The fact that IE7 has worked flawlessly on every CSS site with hacks i've used it on says a lot.

Re:Anyone have

[rtilghman]

Riiiight, I guess all those folks using xhtml transitional who are still seeing the guillotene bug did something wrong? Yep, makes sense to me.

I'll tell you what. Put an image in a nested, floating box, then dynamically change the filter properties on that box, say with a modification of opacity on the fly... image or text disappears, box collapses.

But thankfully all the workarounds have been eliminated, so now I can just write a WHOLLY different style sheet and code base for IE 7!

-rt

Re:Anyone have

[mkiwi]

Current XHTML support in IE is severely lacking. I love to make up my own tags, define their attributes with CSS and place them all over the page.

However, IE does not support this (Safari, Opera, Firefox do) and it makes advancing a web site very difficult. It would be a huge time-saver if IE fully supported XHTML. Beta 3 might change this, but then again, unfortunatlely no one in my company runs IE beta 3. Kind of a problem if you want to make a successful web site from HTML, CSS and JavaScript.

Re:Anyone have

[man_of_mr_e]

Tell you what, even if that were true, it wouldn't matter. Filters are not standards compliant.

So, you're complaining that when doing non-standards compliant tricks, the result is non-standard. How imaginitive of you.

CSS?

[aymanh]

I did a quick search for "CSS" in those reviews, got zero hits. I skimmed through the lists of enhancements, and looks like almost everything has been available in other browsers for years. 'Nuff said.

Re:CSS?

[DavidTC]

No shit. Their great improvement are basically grabbing the UI of Firefox and Opera.

Well, that's all well and good, I don't have the slightest problem with that. But, um, if we wanted that we had IE frontends for the past five years that did that. I, as a web developer, want bug fixes and correct standards support, and as a Internet user I'd also like some security. Not stupid drag and drop tabs.

does not install

[managementboy]

[irony]
shit, once again I am stuck! I tried to install it on my SuSE 10.1, but it does not work... this damn Windows Genuine Advantage. If Novel only had a SuSE Genuine Advantage.
[/irony]

Re:does not install

[Eideewt]

That would certainly be less work than pointing out every misuse of the word.

Re:does not install

[ichigo 2.0]

I really don't see what's so ironic about the post. An IE user is trying to install the IE beta on SuSe and is bitching about the vendor not supporting WGA; seems like something that could happen to anyone.

Re:does not install

[Eideewt]

Yeah, I'm not sure either, but I'm not going to point it out every time someone gets it wrong.

Re:does not install

[heinousjay]

Correct usage would be if his results were the opposite of what was expected (it worked), or his meaning was the opposite of what he said (he expected it to work). Maybe other stuff, I don't know anymore. These damned Slashdot irony wars have burned the meaning clean out of my brain.

Not Feature Complete

[Nicholas Evans]

IE7 may have all of the features Microsoft wanted it to have, but it still lacks reak XHTML support.

They've had how many years to get their shit together, but we're still stuck with 'sorry, our implementation is a hack even though we helped write the standard, maybe you'll get THE BASIC FEATURES OF THE WORLD WIDE WEB implemented in 2015!

Re:Not Feature Complete

[Nicholas Evans]

Wow, look at my awesome complete sentences!

They've had how many years to get their shit together, but we're still stuck with 'sorry, our implementation is a hack even though we helped write the standard, maybe you'll get THE BASIC FEATURES OF THE WORLD WIDE WEB implemented in 2015!' story.

Sorry, I'm just really annoyed by this. It's great that IE7 users are getting some UI hotness, but I (as a web developer) am still getting boned. That is not acceptable to me.

Re:Not Feature Complete

[Jugalator]

It's great that IE7 users are getting some UI hotness

Why do you neglect all the dozens of CSS fixes made in IE 7? To make your point more easily? To ignore that they felt their resources is better diverted at CSS now than XHTML? Many web developers coding in "XHTML" even belives it's mostly just a matter of casing your tags properly, which it's not. I really think layouts on web pages are more important for a web browser than following a reformulation of HTML in XML. Sure, the latter can be useful for e.g mobile devices with more limited parsers, but which kind of device do you believe is most common to read web pages on?

Re:Not Feature Complete

[tftp]

Sure, the latter can be useful for e.g mobile devices with more limited parsers, but which kind of device do you believe is most common to read web pages on?

A desktop/laptop computer will stay the most common device for a while; however there are tens of millions of cell phones and PDAs that are quite capable of Web access, I have two of them myself. And I carry my 802.11-enabled PDA with me far more often than a laptop.

Re:Not Feature Complete

[pe1chl]

Why do you neglect all the dozens of CSS fixes made in IE 7?

Probably because there are still at least one hundred left...

Re:Not Feature Complete

[DavidTC]

Well, part of the problem is they've fixed like half the problems...including 'problems' that web developers used to hide CSS from broken-ass IE. Many of those reasons for hiding the CSS are still there, but now IE7 will see it and render brokenly. Yay.

Microsoft needs to fix all its problems with rendering. Rendering is the most important thing a web browser does, hell, it's the only thing it does. Everything else is just to let users make it do that.

As for XHTML, XHTML is gibberish at this point. Almost everyone uses it wrong by offering it up with an HTML mimetype. XHTML is simply not important.

Re:Not Feature Complete

[man_of_mr_e]

Yeah, yeah, they've had umpteen years to work on this, but they didn't. They've only been working on this for less than 2. IE7 is a stopgap release, focusing on security and fixing bugs in the rendering with a few new UI enhancements that people have been screaming for. A new parser would have made it impossible to get out the door in a reasonable time frame.

The development leads have indicated that they are going to be doing more agressive updates in the future, and i wouldn't be surprised to see an xhtml+xml support in the next version. It's just beyond the scope of this one. Live with it, and don't be a petulant child because you can't have everything instantly. It's in the works.

Re:Not Feature Complete

[man_of_mr_e]

Which reasons might those be? Do you have specific cases where there are still CSS bugs? That doesn't include unimplemented features, since those will be ignored anyways. If you do, you should report them. Also, if you want to target stuff just at IE, rather than use the star hack, why not just use conditional comments? It's supported.

Re:Not Feature Complete

[DavidTC]

Which reasons might those be? Do you have specific cases where there are still CSS bugs? That doesn't include unimplemented features, since those will be ignored anyways. If you do, you should report them.

Um, MS knows full well how shoddy its box model is. There are tons of things MS hasn't fixed, and, no I don't need to report them.

Also, if you want to target stuff just at IE, rather than use the star hack, why not just use conditional comments? It's supported.

Yeah, they fixed like five CSS parsing bugs, and pretend that is somehow what web designers were complaining about. Those were just amazingly stupid errors, but if they were the only ones it would be trivial to write CSS that doesn't use what causes IE to barf.

The actual bugs are things like positioning and sizing boxes and cutting off content inside divs and all sorts of problems. Microsoft hasn't fixed any of these. The CSS parsing bugs were used to hide CSS that triggered other bugs, and now the parsing bugs are fixed, so the other bugs will now show up.

And, yes, now they've invented conditional statements in CSS that let you hide the CSS from IE7. So...um...the 'advancement' is that we now have to go back into our CSS and add these conditionals to the CSS we already had hidden. (And we have to leave it the same way, so IE6 won't choke on it.)

Some of us aren't really seeing the advantage of this 'bugfix'. How about IE actually rendering correctly so we don't have to feed it custom CSS?

And that doesn't even address the 'reverse hacks', aka '* html', where some CSS was written only for IE, and we still need it in IE7. How the hell are we supposed to conditional that?

They went and fixed their parser and not their renderer. We didn't give a damn about their parser. It would be trivial to write code that could be parsed the same in every browser. It's their broken rendering that's fucking us up, we were just using the broken parsing to hack the broken rendering.

Re:Not Feature Complete

[man_of_mr_e]

I didn't ask you want Microsoft knows, I asked you what YOU know. FYI, the box model has been fixed since IE5.5. Most people don't know this, though, because they don't have any clue what strict mode is, and how the box model is rendered differently.

Yeah, they fixed like five CSS parsing bugs

Yeah, like the Peekaboo bug, Guillotine bug, Duplicate Character bug, Border Chaos, No Scroll bug, 3 Pixel Text Jog, Magic Creeping Text bug, Bottom Margin bug on Hover, Losing the ability to highlight text under the top border, IE/Win Line-height bug, Double Float Margin Bug, Quirky Percentages in IE, Duplicate indent, Moving viewport scrollbar outside HTML borders,
1 px border style, Disappearing List-background, Fix width:auto, min/max height, etc.. etc..

Yeah, that looks like just 5 parsing bugs.

The actual bugs are things like positioning and sizing boxes and cutting off content inside divs and all sorts of problems. Microsoft hasn't fixed any of these.

Bull, all of the above, plus more have been fixed in IE7. So again, what specific flaws still remain? You clearly don't know because you think things that were fixed as far back as beta 1 still aren't fixed. You haven't even LOOKED at it, have you?

Further, you know so little about it that you think conditional comments are in CSS. They're not. They're in the HTML, which you can use to include a specific style sheet for IE, or specific versions of IE if you like. Further, this isn't new, it's been in IE since 5.0. Again, you haven't even *LOOKED* at it, have you?

Why don't you stop saying they haven't fixed any bugs, when you really don't know what you're talking about?

Re:Not Feature Complete

[DavidTC]

FYI, the box model has been fixed since IE5.5.

Unless you, oh, write XHTML with a correct xml header, or use the short form of the HTML 4 doctype, or all sorts of things that makes IE decide it's in quirks mode, thus wasting large amounts of everyone's time cause it doesn't, in fact, tell you this.

But you're right, I wasn't talking about the 'lets count the margins in the width' actual 'box model' bug. I was talking about all the inane CSS box weirdness like the 3 pixel thing and flipflop of dotted and dashed borders.

You haven't even LOOKED at it, have you?

No, because I'm a web developer, and I can't installed damn uninstallable beta-software if it means I can no longer look at pages in IE6. I'll probably get XP installed in my virtual machines by the end of this week when I have more time. But right now, I've merely been going off the reviews of what people say has been fixed.

If you want to bitch at someone, how about the slashdot editors who didn't provide any list of any sort of bugfixes, instead linking to complete fluff articles? Apparently we're supposed to be willing to download and install MS beta software so we can figure out what's still broken and what isn't so we can comment here. I mean, I'm the first to say 'read the fucking article' before commenting, but 'Download and install the beta software, possibly rendering your machine unusable' before commenting seems a bit excessive. If there had been major bugfixes to rendering, gee, it sure would have been nice that this 'News for Nerds' told us that.(1)

I just went off public statements by MS of the direction of IE7, and reviews of beta 2. If they truely have fixed the actual bugs, of course they should fix the parsing bugs too. I have to suggest fixing the parsing bugs a year before the rendering bugs, and acting like they weren't going to fix the rendering bugs, was a bit of a mistake. (Although this does explain what the hell happened to actually releasing IE7. I mean, beta 2 was almost a year ago, wasn't it?)

And, for the record, there were still, indeed, 'positioning and sizing boxes and cutting off content inside divs' bugs in beta 2.

Further, you know so little about it that you think conditional comments are in CSS.

I don't give a flying fuck about conditional includes. We already went through that whole browser-sniffing shitfeast, which, if I recall correctly, is when these were invented. Not again, especially not with some non-standard MS silliness. I'm sick and tired of half a dozen broken-in-different-ways browsers, and I'm even more tired when all these browsers appear to be MS.

1) I don't know know why I would expect anything from this site, though. The whole 'look at the fluff articles about beta 3' nonsense just confirms my opinion that the editors here are not, in any way, shape, or form, 'nerds'. Actual nerds would post articles about how IE7 will challenge Firefox, or new security or lack thereof in IE7, or how IE7 is going to make things better or worse for 'web developers', not 'Ooo, shiny, draggable tabs', which every actual nerd who's wanted it has had in IE for years via an IE shell. (In fact, actual nerds know that almost nothing useful is ever posted by ZDNet.)

Re:Not Feature Complete

[man_of_mr_e]

Unless you, oh, write XHTML with a correct xml header

This was, in fact, deliberate. I can't seem to locate the reference right now, but they choose to have the XML prolog force IE into quirks mode as an easy way do this, while maintaining well formed code. I think this was because the W3C even recommends not including the XML doctype if it's not going to be served as application/xml+xhtml.

But that's really beside the point. A web developer should know what causes the browser to run in quirks mode or not. That's part of their job.

Your correct that there are bugs in IE6 still in certain cases that can affect the box model, though.

Look, the fact is, a ton of bugs have been fixed. Everything at positioniseverything.com, for instance.

News for nerds! Ahah

[drspliff]

Uhh, this is a technology site for nerds isn't it? I was expecting a real review of a web browser, not this pseudo-tech magazine style 'yes this product exists' kind of review. The amount of times he mentions 'feature complete' also really bugs me.

Review Outline:
  - They scraped some of the crap off IE 6
  - They've "improved it under the cover".
  - It's now got features that most other browsers have.
  - It'll be released when vista comes around.

What the review should've had:
  - Memory usage comparisons
  - Backwards compatibility
  - Some screenshots of how it miserably fails the ACID2 test.
  - Does it finally have 32-bit colour PNG support?
  - Whats all this 7+ crap and why is it different?

Sorry Paul you're coming across as a hardcore Microsoftie in it for the money rather than trying to give an honest opinion, hope you make lots of money from advertising, but this is a piss poor review.. maybe I should so it to my grandma so she's got something to discuss while she's getting her hair done!

Re:News for nerds! Ahah

[vux984]

maybe I should so it to my grandma so she's got something to discuss while she's getting her hair done!

Maybe that's who it WAS written for. I know my grandmother isn't going to understand memory usage, png support, or ACID2 results...

Re:News for nerds! Ahah

[Keeper]

Memory usage: Less than firefox (not that that is difficult), more than opera
Back compat: Seems fine to me
ACID2 test: It fails miserably, just like every other browser out there
Transparent ping support: It has it
7+ crap: basically, sandboxing of IE and other Vista only features

Re:News for nerds! Ahah

[toriver]

ACID2 test: It fails miserably, just like every other browser out there

Except Konqueror, Safari and Opera 9.

Re:News for nerds! Ahah

[jZnat]

Uh, Konqueror, Safari, and Opera all fully pass the Acid 2 test, and Firefox passes it on the reflow branch (a specific development branch). Thanks for playing.

Re:News for nerds! Ahah

[clontzman]

Memory usage: Less than firefox (not that that is difficult), more than opera

Opera and Firefox both suck on memory usage. Opera 9 freshly opened with three tabs was taking 150MB+ last night. Nice program, but I wish they could get the freaking memory usage under control.

Re:News for nerds! Ahah

[drspliff]

And the copy of Opera 9 I'm running now has been on the go for the past 4 days, I'm a 'heavy user' and it's seen some action.. yet it's still hovering at ~160mb usage.

If you take into consideration how much I use it compared to the other programs and how much I value it in my day to day business, I'm perfectly happy setting aside 5-10% of my systems memory. If it were to start climbing into the mid 300-400mb range *cough*firefox*cough* then I'd start to get concerned.

Re:News for nerds! Ahah

[flabordec]

Firefox doesn't "fail miserably" at the ACID2 test, it just barely fails. What I really loved of the review was the part where he said that some sites are not displaying correctly on IE7. I imagine the poor web developers who have already used hundreds of hours to make their site look right on IE6 and now have to go at it again!

Re:News for nerds! Ahah

[HeroreV]

I'm perfectly happy setting aside 5-10% of my systems memory

What?! Are you serious? What else are you doing while browsing that web that is 10-20 times more important to you?

Re:News for nerds! Ahah

[Doomstalk]

you know what...fuck the acid test.the fact that only 3 browsers pass it and that's just because they wanted to pass this particular test...it TELLS YOU SOMETHING.
it's unrealistic.

The ACID test isn't just some sort of browser back patting wankfest. Well ok, it sorta is, but it's still important. The point is that the internet is based off of standards. All browsers that feature the latest HTML and CSS specs should display pages in exactly the same way. If they don't interoperability goes out the window, and we get hack-laden web sites (a-la sites that depend on bugs in IE6 to make sure they display correctly across all browsers), or worse yet, browser specific web sites. ACID2 is designed to make it easy to test consistency across browsers.

if the functions that are implemented there were so importat every browser would support them.they don't... [sic] there for nobody really gives a fuck about the acid test.

That's a fallacy, pure and simple. A lot of web developers would LOVE to take advantage of the features CSS 2.0 has to offer. The reason why they're so rarely used has nothing to do with their usefulness, and a lot to do with Internet Explorer. Microsoft's browser is notorious for inaccurate, incomplete, or nonexistent standards compliance, but it's still the most popular around. Until Microsoft gets off its duff and makes its browser compliant with modern standards, the internet will be stuck with a 6 year old version of the W3C conventions, and a buggy one at that. If/when they get it done, I'm sure a lot of the features ACID tests will go into wide use.

Re:News for nerds! Ahah

[Keeper]

Damn, that sucks. I haven't tried 9 yet; I didn't realize that it had bloated that badly. For reference, IE is currently using 80mb on my machine with ... 9 tabs open.

Re:News for nerds! Ahah

[Keeper]

...in my defense (after researching in disbelief), opera and konqueror only started to pass within the last few months (and I'd completely forgotten about Safari :p).

Re:News for nerds! Ahah

[man_of_mr_e]

ACID2 does not test consistnecy across browsers. It's merely a snaphot of one set of features (and some invalid ones). Passing Acid2 doesn't mean you're fully standards compliant. It just means you pass those specific tests. It would be like giving someone a dozen questions from the SAT, and if they pass them claiming they got a perfect score.

Now, if the Web standards project wanted to come up with a *COMPLETE* compliance test, that would be a different story. In fact, one could argue that the lack of a comprehensive validation suite is the real problem with the web, and that faul should fall squarely on the shoulders of the W3C.

If there were a comprehensive validation suite, there would be a hell of a lot less "interpreting" of the standard, and developers would be able to have something to shoot for.

Re:News for nerds! Ahah

[thinsoldier]

Yip, if MS took the bull by the horns, fixed all their rendering bugs, and fully implemented css2 properly and gave us at least 50% of css3, all web developers everywhere would love it and put pressure on firefox/safari etc to play catchup.

Re:News for nerds! Ahah

[thinsoldier]

that reminds me, a good many years back I came across a website that had a set of pages setup for validating varous aspects of css and html and forms. It was a few dozen pages long. Firefox 0.9-something passed nearly everything and IE6 failed many of the css related tests. Anyone have a clue what site I'm talking about?

No help for web developers

[ecc962]

"If you are an IE user, head over to the Microsoft Web site and pick up IE 7.0 Beta 3 today."

Except of course unless you're a web developer in which case you still need IE6 on your machine for testing those delightful CSS quirks and, as ever, you can't run two versions of IE on the same machine.

It's odd. MS's developer tools are generally pretty good but they do seem to fall down a bit for those of us who write web applications, especially given the recent rise in far more complex scripting and so on with the whole Web 2.0 buzz / AJAX thing. Oh well.

Re:No help for web developers

[Bogtha]

To be honest, virtualisation beats side-by-side installations for testing purposes anyway. You can set a bunch of virtual machines up, with varying resolutions, one with JavaScript disabled, one with images switched off, etc. Then just load them all up and tick them off the list as you test in each one.

Re:No help for web developers

[morgan_greywolf]

And, furthermore, if you are a Web developer, why bother?

You can get , and you can even switch between the .

IETab is truly one of the most valuable extensions for Web developers that actually care what their pages look like in IE vs. Firefox, Makes it nice and easy to quickly compare and see where things break down.

Re:No help for web developers

[GotenXiao]

Why bother [keeping IE]? I'd rather everyone (yes, web devs, this means you) boycotted IE. It'll be in everyone's best interest - no more broken HTML, no more IE-spread viruses/trojans. Just stop dumbing your site down to meet IE and write code that's standards compliant. When people complain, link them to Firefox and explain WHY you your site won't display. If they still complain, so what? Tell them not to use your site if they want to stay insecure and out-of-date.

PS: everyone who says that IE6 renders CSS correctly in standards mode; tried it. Didn't work. Doesn't work. Never will. Stop maiming your code and write it as the W3C intended - the RIGHT way.

Re:No help for web developers

[hairyfeet]

Actually,You can run multiple Internet Exploiters(TM).Here is the linkhttp://labs.insert-title.com/labs/Multiple-IEs -in-Windows_article795.aspx Not sure if that trick will work in IE7.Worth a try.

That said,Why do you web developers keep making pages for IE?Even on a slow dialup they could get Opera or Firefox.Why not simply put at the bottom of your page- "I'm truly sorry if our pages loads incorrectly.We have asked time and time again for Microsoft to fix the problems with Internet Explorer only to be ignored.So for your convience we are providing links to FOUR free browsers:Kmeleon,Seamonkey,Firefox,And Opera.ANY of these browsers will not only increase your surfing pleasure by giving better features and better page rendering but will also make your surfing more secure by removing the easy to exploit ActiveX hole.Please enjoy with our compliments."

Not only does that give your visitors an easy way to get a better browser,But by wording it as such shows you care about their surfing experience.And since starting back to school I've found a LOT of folks who haven't even heard of Firefox,much less the others(That's why I keep all four on my flash drive).If more web developers would put links to the better browsers on their site along with a ncely worded reason like I just used(feel free to copy/paste the above) then not only will usage of better browsers like Firefox/Kmeleon/Opera/Seamonkey (All hail Seamonkey!) increase but MS will have to eventually take notice,which means maybe IE8 will actually not suck.Better for everyone,IMO.

Re:No help for web developers

[poulbailey]

You could use a dose of pragmatism. Telling 90% of your potential customers that their only choice is to switch to Firefox might work for your personal blog with 20 visitors a day, but that kind of attitude doesn't fly if you actually have regular, paying customers visiting your site.

Re:No help for web developers

[bijoo110]

Actually IE7 will be installed independently of IE6 (which is integrated into Windows).
Choose a different install directory.

Re:No help for web developers

[CrackedButter]

You mean like they do with non IE users?

Re:No help for web developers

[poulbailey]

Who is "they"? I don't think I've seen a site discriminate based on the UA alone in quite some time.

Re:No help for web developers

[beavis88]

Why do you web developers keep making pages for IE

Because our customers don't give a shit whose fault it is, or who has the moral high ground, they'll go to the competition if our site looks like ass and/or doesn't work and the competition's doesn't. Sad but true.

Re:No help for web developers

[Monkier]

If you think Microsoft is letting down those who write web applications (particularly cross-browser ones) check the the AJAX features being demoed in Scott Guthrie's ASP.NET + Atlas Tutorial. Very impessive stuff - a cross browser AJAX app written in minutes.

Try count how many times he says 'go ahead'.

Re:No help for web developers

[jonabbey]

But does Microsoft make you pay for each copy?

What is their policy on virtualization licensing, anyway?

Re:No help for web developers

[htns]

That's why there are standalone versions of Internet Explorer.

Re:No help for web developers

[poulbailey]

The MSN/Opera thing was three years ago. Got anything more recent?

Re:No help for web developers

[killjoe]

What's the harm in telling your customers whose fault it is. Even if you support IE why not make it a little goofy, using ugly fonts or making the images slightly offset or something. Deliberiatly make it ugly and quirky in IE and then write the text below explaining that MS doesn't care about standards and that they are better off with firefox.

Oh and what if you don't have customers? I think every vanity and personal site on the internet should not even work with IE. Finally porn. Make a porn site that only works in firefox, that will get people to switch.

Re:No help for web developers

[someone300]

http://video.msn.com/

To use this product, you need to install free software

This product requires Microsoft© Internet Explorer 6, Microsoft© Media Player 10, and Macromedia Flash 6. To download these free software applications, click the links below and follow the on-screen instructions.

Funnily, if you read the EULA, it informs you that WMP and IE are not free, but are licensed to users of the commercial Windows product...

Re:No help for web developers

[man_of_mr_e]

Actually, yes, you can run two versions on the same machine via several mechanisms. There's the unsupported hack method detailed here http://www.quirksmode.org/browsers/multipleie.html , and you can also download a free VM from VMWare or Microsoft and run a development version of your OS with the other version.

Re:No help for web developers

[HeroreV]

Then just load them all up...

Whoa! I want a computer like yours!

Re:No help for web developers

[thinsoldier]

I have. Many do it by accident and don't realize it. Of course this means their developers don't know enough about website development to bother even testing in other browsers. But that's the case with a lot of so called website developers. So, even if every developer using standards today were to boycot IE, it wouldn't make a very noticeable difference.

Re:No help for web developers

[thinsoldier]

Don't have to do anything deliberately!

In the last couple months, every site I've styled an unordered list into a navigation for has looked totally off in IE. Sometimes the problem can be fixed by compacting all of the markup into a single ungodly line but most of the time there's no hope.

Re:No help for web developers

[killjoe]

I am saying don't fix it. Let it be goofy and put some text on the bottom that says "If this web site doesn't look right you are using an inferior browser. Download firefox today and get a better browsing experience".

Re:No help for web developers

[Don Giovanni]

actually you can

Re:No help for web developers

[Don Giovanni]

also see this

microsoft users

[klyX]

should have read "anyone who uses Windows"

Do you have to be 'genuine' and run WGA first?

[nurb432]

If so, i think ill pass.

Re:Do you have to be 'genuine' and run WGA first?

[westlake]

If so, i think ill pass.

Click to validate the OS, click to download the software. Done.
Click to validate the OS on installation. Done.

That is sum total of time and thought the average user will give to WGA.

Downloads through Download.com: 213,000 (June 29th-3PM ET July 1st) Internet Explorer Beta 3 (SP2)

WGAS

[heptapod]

IE is still going to be bloated with legacy code and remain noncompliant with W3C standards. Regardless of the bells and whistles, it will only have an audience through user inertia or ignorance of alternatives like Opera or Firefox.

Re:WGAS

[smitingpurpleemu]

You realize its audience is still the VAST MAJORITY (85-90%) of the market? Criticizing it like that really is meaningless because when the "user inertia" and "ignorance of alternatives" claim 90% of the market you can't just write it off.

meh

[ElephanTS]

Can't wait to get my hands on tabbed browsing. It sounds really good.

my review

[no-body]

- go and download the thing
First have to validate the system about it's "genuity" and get a key and who knows what it's doing during that process, in any case some sniffing around is done and probably the systems Serial number is recorded.
Once the key is gotten and pasted into a field, download startd...
Then execute the install file - first the system will need to be upgraded, with the "Automatic" upgrade option prominently displayed.
No, I want to do the manual install and see what is coming onto the system.
Well, well, well -the Windows Genuine Advantage is one package in a bundle and _has_ to be installed.

Once the system is upgraded with all the goodies, the IE7B3 installer runs but complains that there is already a previous version of IE7B? installed and it has to be uninstalled first from the Control Panel.But this program has no uninstaller!!

Result: Live with the old IE7 version and have the WGA phone home every day...

Does this suck? Yesssss!!!
M$ is digging their own grave with this type of BS!

Re:my review

[Anonymous Coward]

But this program has no uninstaller!!

Yes, it does. Be sure to check the "Show updates" box in Add/Remove Programs.

Re:my review

[edflyerssn007]

Start -> Control Panel -> Add/Remove Programs -> Windows Internet Explorer Beta 2.

Follow the wizard to uninstall.

You're welcome. -ed

Re:my review

[gooseserbus]

For more information about uninstalling Internet Explorer 7 Betas, see the following MSDN Blog post:

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/06/29/650033 .aspx

-Goose.

Re:my review

[cbhacking]

It's beta. If you can't uninstall an app/upgrade using Add/Remove Programs, rather than a specific uninstall program, well... you really should probably wait for ti to go RTM. Yeah, it's annoying that it doesn't automatically uninstall the old version of IE7 for you, and it's annoying thet you have to restart, but 9to the extremely limited extent I use XP these days) I've been doing that for months as new IE7 builds came out, and it really isn't difficult. As for WGA, I'm sorry, but I really don't know what you're complaining about... oh, and IE7 has integrated WGA capability (disable it if you don't want it, but... why??) so you don't even need to run the validator explicitly.

Even those eho don't use IE except where essential (Microsoft Update) should install IE7; a lot of programs use it behind the scenes, and essentially no amount of locking down IE6 can make it as secure as IE7.

Very positive!

[mangu]

saying something positive about a Microsoft product

Hmmm, let's see:

"it's not enough to make me switch from Firefox"

"it's no longer an object of ridicule either"

"...for anyone choosing to stick with IE"

"If you are an IE user..."

"I still feel that most users would be better off with a more feature-packed browser like Firefox"

I'm not quite sure that "non-negative" is the same as "positive". I also need to look up on the definition for "lukewarm reception".

Re:Very positive!

[DavidTC]

"it's no longer an object of ridicule either"

is what is technically known as 'damning with faint praise'.

It's not any good at all, but at least people aren't pointing and laughing at it?

Re:Very positive!

[Murdoc]

Perhaps that's just how low the bar is when it comes to critiquing IE.
"It doesn't suck!"

Re:Very positive!

[LifesABeach]

"...includes huge functional and security advantages of IE 6..."

I thought Microsoft had a, "NO Tollerance Policy", about the use of drugs on the job?

Re:VALIDATE IT?????

[Eideewt]

Ouch. Are you and the AC that thinks "undermind" is a word the same guy?

or...

[IANAAC]

you could go to a far more reliable site, such as http://www.m-w.com./

BTW, he used it corectly.

Re:or...

[and ladders]

No. It was sarcasm with a bit of hyperbole, but definately not irony.

Re:or...

[IANAAC]

Check definition no. 2 - particularly b and c.

Re:VALIDATE IT?????

[nurb432]

Do you really think they care about feedback? They will just shove it down Windows user's throats anyway. the average person doesnt really have a choice.

This is great news

[sl4shd0rk]

"Internet Explorer 7.0 Beta 3 is a solid, feature-packed browser that all IE users should flock to immediately"

I am going to switch immediately, and you should too.

Add the tag "thinkofthewebdevelopers"

[YA_Python_dev]

I suggest to add to this article the tag: thinkofthewebdevelopers

I don't care if it's an improvement for end users if it's still an hell for web developers due to standard non-compliance.

It breaks the new slashdot layout

[melted]

Installed it yesterday on my old Dell laptop. Turns out it breaks slashdot layout, sidebars to be exact. WTF? I thought it was supposed to have better support for CSS, not worse!

Re:It breaks the new slashdot layout

[idonthack]

Maybe fixed something that the sidebars had a hack to work around. And now the hack is no longer nessecary it messes things up.

Re:It breaks the new slashdot layout

[bky1701]

It's a feature, not a bug, dammit!

Re:It breaks the new slashdot layout

[MonsoonDawn]

In fact it is something to complain about for two reasons.
1. It's still in Beta so there's time to fix the problem
2. The rendering engine was supposed to be complete at Beta 2

If you don't complain - it won't get fixed.

Re:It breaks the new slashdot layout

[jiushao]

Unless I am misintepreting the issue you are having it is actually not a bug but rather a different behaviour within the specification, IEBlog discussed this Slashdot CSS issue. Exactly who to blame for this inconsistency is hard to tell, but I guess the W3C is first in line with the Slashdot CSS developer second.

the Right Direction

[spykemail]

This is definitely a step in the right direction (the Firefox direction that is). I agree that anyone who insists upon using Internet Explorer should get this the moment it's released. Now if only Microsoft can start adopting important standards in 10 years.

The problem I have is this: if IE7 reverses the spread of Firefox, what's to stop Microsoft from repeating history and ceasing all serious development again?

Re:the Right Direction

[bigpat]

The problem I have is this: if IE7 reverses the spread of Firefox, what's to stop Microsoft from repeating history and ceasing all serious development again?

Well, funny thing about firefox is that it isn't going away. As long as the mozilla foundation remains focused and/or as long as there are developers out there willing to take up the slack if they do. Microsoft complacency will only fuel firefox development and Microsoft arrogance will fuel its adoption. A new release of IE will not significantly hurt firefox, yes it may slow migration away, but how long until Microsoft mis-steps again?

Re:the Right Direction

[et764]

The problem I have is this: if IE7 reverses the spread of Firefox, what's to stop Microsoft from repeating history and ceasing all serious development again?

Then Firefox (or another new browser) will come along and reverse the spread of IE again with its new features, the same way Firefox did the first time.

Everybody disses it...

[LIGC]

for its lack of W3C compliance, etc...but you all are missing what is important, that the browser is shinier than the competition. This why firefox still has only a 10% hold of the market, its not shiny enough. Look at the beautiful glossed up buttons on IE7B3 and you know this to be true. Bring on the shiny!

Re:Everybody disses it...

[Cinder6]

But IE7 isn't out yet. The current IE (6) isn't shiny at all. In fact, I prefer the icons and widgets of the default Firefox theme to IE6's (though I don't like FF's defaults much at all). When IE7 goes gold, though, I fear you will be right :(

For a time, at least.

Re:Everybody disses it...

[thinsoldier]

Firefox needs a super shiney interface as one of the OPTIONS when installing. They also need to hype the development of the interface during its design stages. Hire some well known gui-skinner or somebody from apple to design it.

Use FileMirrors to find download URLs

[enosys]

When a website wants you to go through a bunch of hoops like WGA to download a file there's often a very simple way around that. You can probably find the URL on FileMirrors. If it's something popular like an IE beta it'll probably be on the front page so you won't even have to search. Oh, and here's a link to IE7BETA3-WindowsXP-x86-enu.exe.

Re:Use FileMirrors to find download URLs

[Anonymous Coward]

The installer includes and requires WGA. Nice try though.

page history

[dousette]

Does it still record a hidden history of every page you have ever been to that remains even after clearing the cache and history?

I saw in the ZDNet review that they had a one-click option to clear the history, cookies, authentication data, etc, but I didn't see anything to indicate a change in this behavior.

IE7 for users only?

[VGfort]

Thats what it appears to me, they made it "just good enough" for users and didn't care to go much further than that. So I guess we wont see IE8 until they decide to make another OS in maybe 2013? The main reason they updated IE7 is so it would look nice and shiny for Vista. They were nice enough to conform to standards a little better and grab a few ideas from the other browsers, but I doubt they will keep their browser on top of things, they will just plug security holes and leave at that. Yeah, I'm being very skeptical but its not too far from their track record.

Re:IE7 for users only?

[plusser]

When IE7 is offically released, I will probably install it, but I will only use it if the website I use doesn't work in Firefox. Since I tend to boycott most (if not all sites) that don't support Firefox, my download will probably be a waste of my hard drive disc space. In fact I think that the only time I'll be using IE7 is to protect myself from web nasties while I visit the Microsoft website to find out about the latest security holes in IE7.

security?

[tehjesse]

How secure can IE7 truly be? Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't the largest security hole in 6 there precisely because MS uses that same feature for updates? If that's the case, how could they remove that from 7?

By the way, did anyone else hear rumors that MS was dropping IE in favor of mozilla or something similar? I didn't believe it but I heard quite a few people talking about it.

Re:security?

[cbhacking]

IE7 has almost all ActiveX locked off for Internet zone unless you specifically opt in. Even Trusted Sites like Windows or Microsoft Update are limited in their ActiveX interaction. Most of these exploits are ActiveX based, and while anything the size of a full web browser WILL have holes... IE7 is NOT IE6 with a prettier interface; they've severely redone the security structure.

Now, I use IE7+, which, in my build of Vista, actually lags somewhat behind the version reviewed here... but has better security because of application-level dynamic permissions that XP cannot support. When I must use XP I'll go with either Fx or IE7, but I no longer consider even a locked-down version of IE6 to besufficient for, well, anything (except perhaps downloading Firefox and/or IE7). The security redesign, even in the XP version of IE7, is quite significant. In Vista, I only use Firefox for sites that won't allow beta web browsers (eg. Wells Fargo) as it actually runs with dangerously high permissions compared to IE7+. (It's also a memory hog, and has a slightly rough and wasteful - compared to IE7, not IE6 - interface).

It's also quite easy to disable specific plugins, like the Flash ActiveX control, in IR7; dis- or re-enabling it takes about 4 clicks if you need it for a site, and the rest of the time an annoying and occasionally securtiy-risky addon can't run.

It's fine

[archcommus]

I don't understand you people, who cares if it conforms to standards or not. The fact is, websites are designed to work properly with IE, so they will, period. That's really all the end user cares about. This browser is incredibly functional, fast, and secure. It's only for those who are ignorant to alternatives like Opera and Firefox? Uhh, no. I've tried both and prefer IE7B3 over any of them.

Re:It's fine

[JW.Axelsen.Sr.]

I don't understand you people, who cares if it conforms to standards or not.

ohh, i see, you're lost. poor guy, techdirt is over there ->

happy travels.

Re:It's fine

[cyber-dragon.net]

Actualy since I test my sites for standsards compliance they usualy break when viewed in IE. Something will be rendered just a little wrong or an extra space where it should not be etc.

I refuse to do extra work just to satisfy microsofts refusal to play along with standards they usualy pushed for and/or helped write. I also do not care about people who use IE, and after a breif explination neither do most of my clients... and so if you view my companies site in IE it is a bit off and will politely ask you to use any browser but IE if you want to see it the way it was meant to be. I then include my standard "why" page explaining standards and how microsoft does not follow them along with code examples showing all the extra work microsoft tries to create for me.

And yes... some of what I do is professional web development. When I explain the extra cost of making thier site "IE compliant" instead of "Standards compliant" almost always companies go with standards. Just one more way Microsoft raises your total cost of ownership as a business.

Re:It's fine

[scoutts]

First of all it's not fine. It doesn't work with Seibel and it doesn't work with Cognos and it screws up a bunch of various pages like globe and mail, espn etc. So...who cares about globe and espn...well..lots of people. More importantly it is breaking business applications, then...i went to uninstall? Nope...now a long time IE user, was just forced to download Firefox...i'm quite enjoying it.

Re:It's fine

[thinsoldier]

ALL of what I do is professional web development. And I agree with everything you said. Example for the grandparent post. I have many times taken a layout from photoshop comp to fully coded html+css page in under an hour. Then another 10 minutes and I've got every page on a 18+ page website ready and awaiting content from the client. THEN I spend the next 1-4 or more hours trying to get rid of weird extra spacing all over the place (especially navigation areas made of styled lists) without resorting to IE specific hacks or stylesheets (because you never know whats gonna get f-ed up in the next IE version). Now let's Imagine I charge $50 an hour. After the charge for designing the look of the site the costs would be $40 - taking the layout from static image to actual html page $70 - to drop in 18 pages of content (if its supplied in sensibly typed text files and is mostly simple paragraphs and bulleted lists) anywhere from $50 - $400+ - for the time spent mucking about with IE trying to get the layout to look correct. Another possible $50 - $150 because sometimes you just HAVE TO rewrite the javascript from scratch in a completely different manner to get it to work in IE at all or to detect where was the bug that was crashing IE.

Software freedom still matters more than features.

[jbn-o]

"While it's not enough to make me switch from Firefox yet--I still love certain Firefox features such as inline search--it's no longer an object of ridicule either. IE 7.0 Beta 3 includes huge functional and security advantages of IE 6 and is an absolute no brainer for anyone choosing to stick with IE."

MSIE is proprietary. Those three words cover a great deal of what is wrong with Thurrott's review, even granting him his status as a Microsoft sycophant (as another poster pointed out).

• Security advantages are largely unknown because nobody can inspect the program. We'll undoubtedly learn that MSIE 7 is riddled with security problems which Microsoft will be slow to fix, if they fix them at all. Nobody else will be allowed to improve the program and distribute their improved software. These freedoms are what proprietors deny you and your community. This is the well-established pattern of many proprietors, Microsoft being only one. I seem to recall that MSIE 7 had security problems well before this pre-release.
• Yes, being "no longer an object of ridicule" is damning with faint praise.
• Feature counts are what's wrong with a lot of corporate media; covering the horserace without questioning the underlying, more important, reasons why things are the way they are. Covering the underlying reasons would expose that software freedom is more important than feature counts, and in particular with web browsers one need not give up one to get the other. The Mozilla Foundation has been lacking here too; they don't talk about software freedom as a reason to favor Firefox (or any of their other fine programs). They are buying into a contest that they'll undoubtedly lose to a more monied and advertisement-conscious organization—Microsoft—and we'll see this when MSIE regains significant numbers of the popularity percentage points it lost to Firefox over the last few years.

Re:Software freedom still matters more than featur

[NineNine]

Blah, blah, blah. Thanks for the required dose of "freedom" FUD. You know, you guys really abuse that word almost as bad as the US government does. It's pretty disgusting, actually.

HOOKED ON BETAS...

[LEX LETHAL]

CONFESSIONS OF A BETA JUNKIE

I loved testing and trying out betas and freeware. After years of mixing and matching betas and watching a stable operating system become unreliable, I saw an opportunity to limit the betas to just one vendor. After a fresh install of WinXP, I wanted to participate in numerous betas from Microsoft which resulted in the decision to format my hard drive and reinstall WinXP again.

On a fresh XP install I tried the Defender Beta 2; no problem. Then I tried the IE 7 Beta 2. Again everything seemed to be going good. Then I also tried the Windows Media Player 11 Beta. At this point I started to get missing SB.dll error messages during startup and several random reboots that Microsoft reported as a 'known video problem'. By this time I had already realized my mistake and was contemplating a format and OS reinstall. Then Vista Beta 2 had become available so I figured I would give it a try. I was never able to d/l the Vista Beta because the demand was so great so I proceeded to format and reinstall XP.

Betas don't tend to play nice with each other and even though I limited myself to just Microsoft betas this time around, I had to face living without them. I really loved my betas, but it always turned out nasty, so my new mantra is to steer clear. Whatever a beta can provide in the form of sneak-peek thrills or enhanced functionality isn't worth the hassle of degraded OS stability.

Re:HOOKED ON BETAS...

[madcow_bg]

I'm so sorry for you...

By the way, I also use extensively betas, but under Linux. For example, I'm trying the latest unstable kernel, because it has something I want. Well... if that beta IS beta, so 99% of the MS software I use must be called pre-alpha, considering its stability and reliability. And I mean released MS software, not betas.

Re:Software freedom still matters more than featur

[LocoMan]

I agree that feature count being overrated, but I don't think that Firefox is doing wrong trying to compete with IE in that front (as well as in others, of course). IMHO, firefox being a better and more secure browser is what has caused it to rise so much lately, not the freedom part.

Yes, I do believe freedom is important, and it is what allowed Firefox to be what it is today... but if that was the only selling point, I doubt many people (outside of the commonly called "zealots" circle) would have fully switched to it and it would have won the popularity percentage points you talk about. At least I do know that if IE and Firefox were in the same level and being "free" was the only advantage firefox had, I wouldn't have gone trough the trouble of switching (though I'm using more Opera than FF lately), and I'd bet I'm not alone.

Missing a crucial point

[exKingZog]

People here have missed an important point: IE7 finally supports such basic CSS properties as position: fixed, min/max-width and fixes a few of the more annoying bugs; it also now supports PNG alpha transparency.

Once IE7 becomes widely adopted, we can finally start USING some of these features without worrying about them not being compatible with IE. We need to encourage people to upgrade, and if they won't upgrade to Firefox or Opera, then at least they can upgrade to IE7 and give us an easier time developing web pages.

Re:VALIDATE IT?????

[jerw134]

Its unuseable.

I'm using it just fine right now.

If you use Blackboard

[PopeRatzo]

This is no judgement on IE7, but if you're working for or studying at a school that uses the Blackboard distributed learning system, don't upgrade to IE 7 beta just yet. We've found that it breaks a few features of Blackboard (such as Visual Text Box editing and the Discussion Board in some older systems). I like to use Firefox with Blackboard at the school for which I teach/work anyway. Once it's out of beta, I'll certainly try the new Internet Explorer, though. I guess MS should get some credit for adopting the tabbed browsing setup that Firefox has had for a while, though. Or maybe not.

Re:Software freedom still matters more than featur

[cfourkays]

And you, my friend, are an obvious Firefox or Open Source sycophant, which is not all that bad. While FF is my browser of choice, I can't convince 99.999% of my customers, a mostly retired mixed group of people, to switch from what came with their PC. Yes, most of their geeky Grandchildren have seen the benefits of FF and other browsers, and even a Linux OS, the average "User" still thinks tabbed browsing means opening up another can while surfing.

IE Users??

[SQLz]

If you are an IE user, head over to the Microsoft...

Who are.....these people?

Re:Sig

[WilliamSChips]

python>>> q="'";s='q="%c";s=%c%s%c;print s%%(q,q,s,q)';print s%(q,q,s,q)

Nice quine.

Slashdot Web dev commenters out of touch?

[kiwioddBall]

I'm a developer and whilst I understand the point of view that IE is not standards oriented, the fact is that you're missing the whole point in that end users like IE, its really easy to use, and don't give a toss about the fact that it isn't standards compliant. All they care about is that web sites work in it, which they do.

Web Developers can bitch all they want about standards etc, but the fact is that all Microsoft are worried about is backwards compatibility, which is the 100% correct way to go. Deal with it! Microsoft build products with the end user in mind. Web Developers are not the mass market end users.

What would happen if Microsoft decided to start making the browser entirely standards compliant? A number of websites would stop working. You guys would moan about Microsoft again, saying how it was all their fault anyway. No change there, no incentive for Microsoft. Microsoft would lose market share because they made their browser the same as everyone elses. Theres no money to be made because you are the same as everybody else. Again, no incentive for Microsoft.

I think you guys should get a reality check, and stop thinking that Microsoft should be impressing you somehow.

Disclaimer. I am a developer, not for Microsoft, and I work on developing, recommending and implementing software based on open source products.

Re:Slashdot Web dev commenters out of touch?

[value_added]

What would happen if Microsoft decided to start making the browser entirely standards compliant?

Uh ... web developers could develop to standards and call it a day?

Re:Slashdot Web dev commenters out of touch?

[killjoe]

"Disclaimer. I am a developer, not for Microsoft, and I work on developing, recommending and implementing software based on open source products."

Why not say that you are liar and save all that typing?

Re:Slashdot Web dev commenters out of touch?

[kiwioddBall]

I live in New Zealand. Microsoft doesn't have dev shops here. Save your conspiracy theories for wherever you come from.

Re:Slashdot Web dev commenters out of touch?

[killjoe]

And open source penetration in NZ is what? I have been there, the entire country is one big MS shop. People look at you weird when you say linux. Oh and MS does have a large building near the wharfs in Auckland. I might think there might be one or two programmers there.

Re:Slashdot Web dev commenters out of touch?

[thinsoldier]

FOR THE 10 BILLIONTH TIME

DOCTYPE Switch!

The vast majority of sites were built without a doctype or using a doctype that does not activate Standards mode. For them to fully implement CSS properly will NOT BREAK these millions of old pages that are displayed in QUIRKS MODE. It's that simple.

You might be a developer but your knowledge of web development is lacking.

Re:Slashdot Web dev commenters out of touch?

[Pecisk]

I'm a developer and whilst I understand the point of view that IE is not standards oriented, the fact is that you're missing the whole point in that end users like IE, its really easy to use, and don't give a toss about the fact that it isn't standards compliant. All they care about is that web sites work in it, which they do.

You are wrong here. Most users don't like IE, but they DON'T HAVE A CHOICE (in their knowhow level). It is preinstalled, it is aviable, and it is "where you get internet, this blue e letter, where is it?". Period. And there is not yada yada, dudu dudu about any other alternatives like Opera or Firefox, because those users DON'T KNOW THAT SUCH ALTERNATIVES EXIST.

You know how embarrasing it is when you hear - "those computers and internet are buggy, ichy and not worth the trouble?". Because they found their opinions only and only on Windows. And here we can discuss - why people gets it that there are many cars (if Honda, for *example*, sucks in his expierence, he could try to get a BMW or WV) they can choose from, there are many meals they can choose from, but they don't get that there are many apps and services and OSes he can choose from to work with. Someone may call it user stupidity, I call it simply marketing and PR brainwashing. Software companies like Microsoft can get away from doing simply stupid things in code and marketing by label it "ohh, Windows is for stupid users, they won't get anything else". Wrong, wrong, wrong. Those users are very different in cleverness and smartness, but I can't call them outright stupid. Uninformed, without tech help - yes, but not stupid. We just need to show them that there is no damn difference between FF and IE for them, that Firefox can bring them even more.

You know how much people installs Firefox theirselves when they just get a little "Get back internet, use Firefox" banner in their most loved web site? You would be very surprised. And they find out what FF really is, they rarerly switches back.

Yeah, right, uhuh...

[rtilghman]

I'll tell that to the forune 500 company who gives me $3.5 million to build an interactive portal or app when it doesn't workm for 90% of their clients.

Sorry if this sounds harsh man, but your post shows either gross naivete, a lack of understanding of the business component of this industry, or a gross ignorance to real world considerations. Take your pick.

-rt

Re:Yeah, right, uhuh...

[Neoncow]

I'll tell that to the forune 500 company who gives me $3.5 million to build an interactive portal or app when it doesn't workm for 90% of their clients.

Tell that it will only cost an extra $1 million in development and testing to make it compatible with IE.

90% more userbase for less than 30% more cost! What a bargin!! </joke disclaimer="IANAIPD (Interactive portal devoloper)">

Re:Yeah, right, uhuh...

[DavidTC]

Um, hello, web developer here. I have to write for IE's crap all the time.

I'm just pointing out, when your 3.5 million dollar website breaks, point out it is because Microsoft can't even standardize on incompatiblities. Don't accept this default position the computer industry has that nothing is ever anyone's fault. Point out that this is the second set of problems that IE support has created, the first being the work to use the incompatiblities.

It's not to get anyone to switch right there, or to make your website standards-only. There's no way that's going to happen. It's to stir up general dissatifation at the fact that everyone uses IE, with the result that more people don't like IE, on average, which will result in less people using it, on average, which means more people writing to standards, which means that there will be more resentment stirred up when these standards don't work, etc.

Which will eventually means that MS will have to FIX THE DAMN PROBLEMS or end up with no marketshare.

I'm not trying to get anything to happen in anyone's specific situation. I'm saying, (honestly and correctly) explain the problem, not just to the people who know it, web designers, but to the people in charge, to make the cycle of hate happen a little faster.

In short: If Microsoft causes you and your company extra work, be sure everyone knows this is Microsoft's fault, not some mysterious random computer problem that magically happens.

Re:Thank God Bill is Gone

[xerxesdaphat]

And it has complex, inconsistent, and worst of all multiple competing models of GUI design!

As compared to Linux desktops... ?
                This is actually a point in favour of Linux being ready for the desktop. People go on and on how the GTK/Qt thing is bad news for new Linux users, but Microsoft has been doing it for years and people don't seem to be too confused.
                BTW, shouldn't we be pleased that at least MS responded to user feedback for once?

-Tommi =^_^=

hear hear!

[nullchar]

I want two things from IE7:
1) full CSS3 support
2) accept the application/xml+xhtml MIME type (for valid xhtml 1.1 pages)

Power users & standards support? Count me out

[fbg111]

"While it's not enough to make me switch from Firefox yet--I still love certain Firefox features such as inline search--it's no longer an object of ridicule either."

Mod me troll or whatever, but IE7b3 is still an object of ridicule, for Firefox and especially for Opera 8+ users. It comes up short in two important areas - power user features and standards support. It just can't compete with Opera's MDI, customizeable shortcut keys, and mouse/rocker gestures, among a plethora of other features. I just uninstalled IE7b3, it's just not an option for power users, except webdev's needing to test for compliance. And as for standards compliance, another /.'er provides succinct insight on that point.

Re:VALIDATE IT?????

[FKnight]

Do you really think they care about feedback? They will just shove it down Windows user's throats anyway. the average person doesnt really have a choice.

Of course they care about feedback. They just don't care about feedback from a bunch of nerds on Slashdot who have absolutely no intention of buying any of their software anyway. They do, however, care about the feedback from their paying customers, which is why all of their products have the features they have; and anyone who thinks all of the features that are in their products are unnecessary, like say the stuff in Office, is still living with their mom and has never had a job.

Build for IE6 and 7?

[unoriginal42]

It's safe to say that we'll be needing to test for (and hack) 6 for a while yet.

Any news of a standalone ie6/7 for testing purposes?

IE7 and Office 2007 Preview Site

[richpulp]

I had the misfortune to want to try and register online for my Office 2007 beta content, using IE7 Beta3. Naturally it didn't work, and had I been an ordinary user I would have given up, uninstalled IE7 and gone back to using IE6. As it happens, I had to add the Office preview site to my Trusted sites in order to get it to work. Some comfort then that the ootb experience makes the default security level in IE7 a lot higher.

Disrelated: Adobe seem to have released Flash player 9

Bug has been discussed between slashdot and MS!

[rbarreira]

This bug has been known by IE7's developers for at least 1/2 weeks, and in fact they have discussed it with slashdot (or at least tried to). See this for the technical explanation.

Re:VALIDATE IT?????

[rbarreira]

Read this before speaking any more bullshit about how they don't care AT ALL about standards and feedback from users.

IE7 beta3 Crash.

[paynesmanor]

Windows XP Home Version 2002 Service Pack 2 Mobile AMD Athlon 4 1500+ 1.29GHz 256MB of RAM. This was a upgrade from IE7 Beta2. I uninstalled the beta 2, rebooted, and installed the beta 3 from the Microsoft website. I rebooted, everything worked great for about three hours of surfing. I shut down. When I rebooted, a few hours later, Windows would not boot, I got no errors just a half hour lag of waiting to see the windows begin. (something that usually takes less then three mins) I had to do a hard boot, I saw the windows load screen this time, But it would not open to the desktop. After about a hour and a half of waiting I did a Hard boot again this time I booted in safe mode it booted right away, and everything was working fine. I shut down and rebooted windows it did boot normally. I opened IE7 it opened to my home page and windows crashed to a reboot, when I tried to stray away from my home page. I saw a quick flash to a blue screen and the system just preceded to reboot, this time windows told me that it could not find the OS. I did yet another hard reset, it booted to the desktop but when I tried to open the IE7, I saw a blue screen with something about a stack dump error and I let it reboot, and it told me it could not find the OS again, yet another Hard boot, This time in safe mode and it booted fine, windows loaded, I shut down and rebooted and windows booted normally, so I opened IE7 again, and was able to surf generally for about 5 mins of very laggy surfing before a crash to a blue screen I managed to pause it this time and here is the error I got. Kernal_Data_Inpage_error 0x0000007a (0xc000000e, 0x8062177c, 0x0832b860). I booted back in safe mode and uninstalled the IE7 beta 3. Rebooted everything was good, I installed the IE7 beta 2, rebooted and have not seen the error or had any issues since.

Re:VALIDATE IT?????

[nurb432]

Marketing spin. My stick with my statement.

Newsgroup

[cbhacking]

I'll give you the benefit of a doubt, but that's pretty close to a flame. MS is losing IE market share, mostly to Firefox, and they don't like that. They are most definitey giving a damn about what people want. Many, MANY features now found in IE7 - some of which, like where tabs open and the order in which they close, are still not available in OOTB Firefox - are directly from the user-driven newsgroup requests.

Not very sensible advice

[tehcyder]

If you are an IE user, head over to the Microsoft Web site and pick up IE 7.0 Beta 3 today

I'm not sure of the wisdom of recommending beta software to the general public (Google aside).

There is no obligation to share free software.

[jbn-o]

One of the freedoms of free software is that I'm under no obligation to publish my changes. In the words of the definition of the term "free software" in this context:

"You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.

The freedom to use a program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job, and without being required to communicate subsequently with the developer or any other specific entity."

Which lays out my reluctance to explain to you or anyone else what my Firefox modifications do or why I put those changes into my copy of the program. I'd cite a relevant section of the applicable license, but no such section exists.