Internet Explorer 7 RC1 Released

Kawahee writes "Microsoft, in conjunction with the announcement that they have finished Windows Vista RC1 have released Internet Explorer 7 RC1. Further commentary from the IE Blog post: 'The RC1 build includes improvements in performance, stability, security, and application compatibility. You may not notice many visible changes from the Beta 3 release; all we did was listen to your feedback, fix bugs that you reported, and make final adjustments to our CSS support.'"

Comments

CSS = ACID?

[Anonymous Coward]

does this mean it passes the acid test?

Re:CSS = ACID?

[pe1chl]

It is a step, but it is very questionable if it is a good thing to make a step when they are still so far of the target of rendering common CSS constructs that all other browsers render without problem.
(I do not mean the ACID2 test!)

Now we will have yet another browser to make special exceptions for, different from IE5 and IE6, and we still cannot feed IE7 the same CSS as Firefox, Opera or Konqueror.
That is a step, but is it the right direction? I don't know.

Re:CSS = ACID?

[pe1chl]

They cannot install IE7 if they aren't running XP SP2 or 2003 server.
It has always been possible to install another browser, but looking at the number of IE5 and 5.5 visits I still see, I think it will be 5 years before IE6 shows any sign of disappearing.

Re:CSS = ACID?

[icepick72]

One thing that we must make sure NEVER happens is that IE gets as dominant as it was pre-Firefox otherwise they'll just stop IE development again

The popularity of IE7 cannot be stopped because it's bundled with Windows and made available through Windows Update web site which almost every Windows user frequents, knowningly or not. Therefore the browser doesn't have to be popular because it will be widely used regardless.
I've been a Firefox-only Windows user for years however if IE7 supports many of the features I like about Firefox, I will have no qualms using it instead. I want the Web, not a browser. The ACID tests are important for standards, but we know Microsoft usually doesn't adhere fully to standards that aren't their own, so it's no a surprise. With IE7 Microsoft seems to be adhering to the 80/20 rule -- in this case 80% of what the better brwosers have become with 20% of the effort expended. This is smart business practice despite the other aspects.
Microsoft has copied popular features introduced by other browsers (as they have done from each other). I know we're going to see less Firefox on Windows when IE7 is published to Windows update. Most users don't care for the ACID tests (only the developers). It's amazing the dominance the old IE browser still has even though Microsoft hasn't updated it in years. It's inevitable that IE7 will make big wave and grab back a large % of browser share with its copied features.

Re:CSS = ACID?

[Jekler]

It is absurd that it takes less time and money to design and build an unmanned vehicle to explore mars, launch the vehicle, and complete the mission, than it does to design and build a rendering engine which passes Acid2 (or is otherwise compliant with HTML 4.01, CSS1/2, and DOM Level 1). Nevermind CSS3, SVG, or any newer technology, it is shocking that after 9 years of development on the Gecko Engine, it's not even CSS1 compliant. It seems foolish to bother developing subsequent standards until foundational work is complete.

Re:CSS = ACID?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Mozilla had $820 million and several hundred rocket scientists working full time and over time on only the Gecko engine for three years, then yeah, I think it might pass Acid2.

I'm not saying it's reasonable that it hasn't, I'm saying it's unreasonable to compare a bunch of cowboys that do stuff for fun with a few paid employees along with them to JPL making robots and sending them to Mars.

Re:CSS = ACID?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that standards are not in Microsoft business interests -- that's why they went with the Windows' specific developments such as JScript and ActiveX.

It's not so much weak standards and bad design, as it is lack of interest.

Re:CSS = ACID?

[FST777]

I design websites and webapps for a living, and all I ever have to do is design it so that it works in Firefox (ie: stick to the standards mostly) and then make sure it works in IE6 without using browser-detects (ie: use functionality detects). I have yet to come across a situation where the result doesn't work in IE7.

IE7 is an improvement, and I'm glad I have not been stupid enough in the past to use browser-detects. That is the sort of crap that keeps coming back to you with every new major version of any browser.

FINISHED?!

[Desolator144]

I don't think they should be allowed to call it finished. They'll probably rewrite most of it in patches over the next few years like IE6. At least it has better CSS support. And now it works better with adware applications and maybe they finally added support for the "fixed" div style so we can all get attacked by screen covering super ads that can't be removed.

backwards compatibility

[legoburner]

From people who have been using IE7 betas/RCs, how does it handle backwards compatibility? If someone is detecting IE and then generating different javascript to get around IE6 glitches, will they now need to test for IE6 or below /and/ IE7 or above to handle the old glitches and the non-glitchy IE or do glitch workarounds not affect the output of IE7?

Re:backwards compatibility

[pe1chl]

The site at work (http://www.uw.nl/) outputs standard html/css to everyone, and uses "IE conditional comments" to feed IE5 and IE6 specialized CSS items to work around their bugs.
A workaround sheet for IE7 has not yet been written, but it is very apparent (at least in beta3) that it is not up to the quality in standard CSS handling that the other browsers (Opera, Firefox, Konqueror) are. There are still positioning and stacking bugs.

I hope they fix them before release, but I'm afraid they won't. So this will introduce yet another class of broken browser workarounds: not as broken as IE6, but still broken.

Really?

[also-rr]

listen to your feedback

So this version will actually let me punch internet trolls in the face remotley?

I suppose you could say that if they are using Internet Explorer no further punishment is really necessary. Tell you what, I'll meet you half way - if it's detected that Flash is installed the face-punching module can be turned off and replaced with an endless loop of Joanna Smith's Video Blog Installment 19 (My Trip To Blackpool) instead. Do we have a deal?

On a related note in a tainted and statistically useless sample (ie, mostly Slashdot users) even Mac users can be tempted from Safari it seems - so why everyone assumes that on the release of IE 7 Firefox market share is going to die I have no idea.

Re:Web developers have it backwards

[thelost]

because most people use internet explorer and if websites don't work in it it won't me MS they hassle, but the website designers. Designers (I'm one of them) know which side their bread is buttered on, we have to put these hacks in place because at the least clients expect sites we design for them to work in IE. They often might not know that there are different browsers or that websites render differently depending on which browser you view them with.

So in an ideal world, designers would drop tools and say fuck no, i'm not coding another box model hack till MS fix this, however MS are under *no* obligation to make IE work unfortunately. Also, to most peoples standards IE *does* work well enough unfortunately.

Re:Web developers have it backwards

[gregOfTheWeb]

Damn that's the truth. Who cares about standards in the marketplace. satisfy the CUSTOMER! A developer should develop against IE and make it compatible with FF. Why would you possibly do it otherwise with FF having a market share between 10-20% depending on which report you look at.

To do the reverse, develop for FF and make it compatible with IE, is elitist and foolish and wastefull.

Re:Who the fuck cares about CSS?

[WhiteWolf666]

I actually haven't been reading that at all.

Most of the reviews I've read chide MS for creating an interface that looks far, far different than anything else in the OS.

The average person does NOT like MS's new interface design. For the most part, there is a huge majority of people who run XP in "classic" mode, enjoying all applications in a one-size-fits all, boxy, ugly as sin, tan/grey everything Windows 2000-style interface. In particular, placing tabs above the menu bar seems to incite hatred; people find it confusing.

Joe Blow doesn't like UI changes; even if they could potentially increase efficency. The only people that are really moved by whiz-bang UIs are young gamers and UI engineers.

Re:Can't customize the toolbar

[oyenstikker]

"It is better than IE 6 in pretty much every way"

What?! User interface is non-standard and sucks. The CSS support is different but not right, so correct CSS is broken AND IE6 hacked CSS is broken. What way is it better in? Tabs. Thats one way, not pretty much every way.

Re:Who the fuck cares about CSS?

[amliebsch]

For the most part, there is a huge majority of people who run XP in "classic" mode, enjoying all applications in a one-size-fits all, boxy, ugly as sin, tan/grey everything Windows 2000-style interface.

You are claiming that the "huge majority" of people who use Windows XP run in "classic" mode. What is your source for this?

Re:Who the fuck cares about CSS?

[Digit Machine]

I don't know about what vista looks like, but I run xp in classic mode. I cannot stand the colorful childlike buttons in the menubar and the menubar is larger in xp theme. I want to be able to see what is in the window, not a big toylike bar across the top of the screen.