Helpful Stuff For IE7?

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Thursday November 2, 2006 @06:33PM from the forewarned-is-forearmed dept.

Cycloid Torus asks: "IE7 is with us. It asked to be installed as a Critical Update this morning, so I decided to find out more about what was going on and if there are issues to this new and official piece of Windows XP. I found a site of known IE7 issues to be of use. Are there other sites with solid information which can help the wary from getting charred with this upgrade?"

46 of 58 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

yes... by xiao_haozi · 2006-11-02 18:35 · Score: 2, Funny

the uninstaller?!? i kid i kid... i am interested to see what kind of run this gives compared to the recent news about ff2 issues, etc. I think if ie7 had some great plugin base it could gain back some of those in the middle ground----

--
my site of misleading and incorrect information!
1. Re:yes... by xiao_haozi · 2006-11-02 18:44 · Score: 1
  
  http://blogs.msdn.com/ie [for the good] ie team blog http://secunia.com/product/12366/ [ for the bad] ie7 vulnerability report http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/community/ [for the both] ie community page
  
  --
  my site of misleading and incorrect information!
Don't update. by neurosis101 · 2006-11-02 18:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

As a web developer, somehow they found a way to make IE7 even worse than IE6.

All that PR that they had with the IE developer interview here on /. has not convinced ANYONE. He spent the whole time about talking how they listened to developers to determined what they want. Last time I checked I was getting a paycheck and you've done nothing, NOTHING to help.

Want some examples? One person brought up CSS compliance (I don't care WHICH CSS standard you pick, but pick one for chrissakes) and he said, "oh developers don't want that." Well, I do! Do you have any idea how irritating it is that IE and FF treat margins and padding differently for making even the most simple layouts?

And as a warning, IE7 is even worse about page caching than IE6. I had IE7RC1 installed and I actually uninstalled it because it was taking me 4 times longer to do any development. More specifically, if you get a hard XML error (which you undoubtably will do if you do any AJAX for example) its near impossible to get it not to load a cached copy, even with clearing the cache. I'm not sure what causes this but IE7 doesn't seem to respect the clear cache command like IE6 does.

I can live without tabs in IE; if I want to browse the web for personal reading I'll use FF anyway.
1. Re:Don't update. by neurosis101 · 2006-11-02 20:32 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I have. It used to be Shift F5 in previous versions. The bottom line is clearing out the cache should ALWAYS force a clean fetch regardless of how borked up you've made things, and IE7 doesn't do this. How can you be using a local copy if its supposedly gone?
2. Re:Don't update. by digital+bath · 2006-11-02 21:06 · Score: 1
  
  Forgive me if you already know this, but I ran across this bit of info a few months back. You can put IE into "standards compliant" mode by using certain doctypes. For instance, this doctype will make IE use the W3C standard box model, where the "width" css property sets the width of the content area (excluding borders and padding):
  
  <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transition al.dtd">
  
  This makes writing a site that looks great in Firefox and IE a little easier. Not a whole lot, but a little :)
  
  More info here: www.quirksmode.org/css/quirksmode.html
  
  --
  find / -name "*.sig" | xargs rm
3. Re:Don't update. by ericlondaits · 2006-11-02 23:22 · Score: 1
  
  The disk copy is gone, but there's a copy in memory. Not so hard to understand, really...
  
  My guess is this already happened in IE6, and probably in Firefox as well... the same thing happens with browsing history. Though you clear it, unless you restart the browser the "back" and "forward" buttons will still work and remember the pages you've been to.
  
  Through the options window you can make IE ignore the cache and just load the pages every time... that's almost mandatory when working with web services and the like.
  
  --
  As a Slashdot discussion grows longer, the probability of an analogy involving cars approaches one.
4. Re:Don't update. by orasio · 2006-11-03 00:12 · Score: 1
  
  The disk copy is gone, but there's a copy in memory. Not so hard to understand, really...
  
  You are nuts. Of course you can guess what it actually does, but it doesn't do what it is supposed to do.
  "Clear cache" means exactly that. It clears the cache. Not the cache files. The whole cache.
  
  In Firefox it works as expected.
5. Re:Don't update. by ericlondaits · 2006-11-03 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  I fail to see how I'm nuts. You shouldn't answer disrespectfully by default just because this is Slashdot.
  
  My IE6 doesn't claim to have a "Delete cache" option. It does have a "Delete locally stored content from disk" option (or something like that, my IE6 is in Spanish). My IE7 is at home, so I can't check it right now... so it might actually claim to do something it doesn't, I'm not sure.
  
  --
  As a Slashdot discussion grows longer, the probability of an analogy involving cars approaches one.
6. Re:Don't update. by bluebox_rob · 2006-11-03 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  Does that actually work then? Would be great if it did, but I thought the HTTP content-type header sent by the web server had to tell the browser that it was xhtml, like:
  Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml
  and if it didn't then the DOCTYPE would be ignored. Maybe this now works in IE7, anybody know?
7. Re:Don't update. by Daemonstar · 2006-11-03 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  I had IE7RC1 installed and I actually uninstalled it because it was taking me 4 times longer to do any development.
  Have you tried since the RC? It was beta (well, at least not "final") for a reason. :) I had Beta 1 or 2 installed, the next version didn't even run on my PC, but the one after did. :P
  
  I can live without tabs in IE; if I want to browse the web for personal reading I'll use FF anyway.
  You can disable tabbed browsing in IE7.
  
  --
  I don't reply to Anonymous posts; if you have something to say to me, identify yourself or I won't reply.
8. Re:Don't update. by orasio · 2006-11-03 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  I fail to see how I'm nuts. You shouldn't answer disrespectfully by default just because this is Slashdot.
  
  Sorry, I meant delusional. Seeing stuff that is not there. When you said "probably in Firefox as well" you assumed that Firefox would follow the behaviour of IE.
  Firefox takes care of this kind of stuff, and has a "privacy" funcionality that offers to clear the cache, and selectively other sensitive information. (Control-Shift-Suprimir)
  
  And I am not disrespectuful only because this is /. , this is just who I am.
  
  You are right about IE 6 not having a Clear Cache option.
  I assumed that was what you were talking about with the OP, and I assumed wrong.
  
  About browsing history, visited sites and stuff, "Borrar Historial" is the button that does it on IE.
9. Re:Don't update. by xiong.chiamiov · 2006-11-03 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  You can disable tabbed browsing in IE7.
  He didn't say he didn't want tabs; he said that he could live without them, implying that he will use IEv6, which doesn't have tabs.
  
  --
  have you read the Moderation Guidelines Addendum?
10. Re:Don't update. by sharkey · 2006-11-03 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  IE7 still does not support XHTML. You have to send XHTML as text/html to IE, which puts it into quirks mode, IIRC.
  
  --
  
  --
  "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
11. Re:Don't update. by digital+bath · 2006-11-03 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  I'm running a site on Tomcat 5.5 with the default configuration. The HTTP response looks like this:
  Content-Type: text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1 Transfer-Encoding: chunked Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 19:53:18 GMT <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transition al.dtd">
  The content type is "text/html", but the DOCTYPE is enough to put at least IE 6 into standards compliant mode. I haven't tested IE 7 or IE 5.x, though.
  
  --
  find / -name "*.sig" | xargs rm
12. Re:Don't update. by Bogtha · 2006-11-03 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  No, XHTML labelled as text/html still gets rendered in "standards mode", it's just that "standards mode" isn't very, well, standard. It's just slightly better than "quirks mode", which is basically the same as Internet Explorer 5.5.
  
  --
  Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
13. Re:Don't update. by man_of_mr_e · 2006-11-03 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  Uhhh.. I'm sorry, but we seem to have read entirely different interviews. Nowhere did he say "developers don't want that", what he said was that Developers wanted fixes to the existing CSS support more than adding new CSS features, but even so they did add a number of new CSS features, again based largely upon developer demand (stuff like min/max-width, etc..)
  
  Also, IE (even IE6) and FF treat margins and padding exactly the same way in standards mode. So I don't know what you're trying to say.
  
  As for cacheing, try ctrl-f5.
  
  --
  If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
14. Re:Don't update. by Koatdus · 2006-11-03 19:28 · Score: 1
  
  I can live without tabs in IE; if I want to browse the web for personal reading I'll use FF anyway.
  
  We have several internal comapany k-bases and wikis and ticket systems that have "quirks" it you use any browser other then IE. I personally don't like IE very much but I have found the perfect solution in the IE Tabs extention for Firefox. I just do my work with Firefox and if I run into an internal page or site that doesn't work or display right I just set that one to use the IE rendering engine. This gives me tabs for multiple IE's in the same window, plus all the usual Firefox goodness.
  
  This is one of the most usefull things out there.
  
  Thanks IETab guys!
  
  --
  Every wrong attempt discarded is a step forward - T. Edison
Consistent CSS... by __aaclcg7560 · 2006-11-02 18:55 · Score: 2, Informative

I just modified the CSS file for my website to fix all the crazy bugs in IE6. Loaded up Vista in a VM to take a look at IE7 and all the bugs are still there. Microsoft could have gotten their CSS support to be consistent between versions, or, better yet, correctly display validated XHMTL like everyone else. Honestly, I wish I could kick IE6/7 goodbye.
1. Re:Consistent CSS... by moranar · 2006-11-02 19:15 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Is your doctype strict or transitional? I seem to remember IE 7 will only do "the right thing" if the doctype is stated as strict, so you might want to try that.
  
  --
  "I think it would be a good idea!"
  Gandhi, about Internet Security
2. Re:Consistent CSS... by earthbound+kid · 2006-11-02 22:49 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  No, he's serving XHTML 1.0, which can be served as text/html if necessary, not 1.1, which cannot.
3. Re:Consistent CSS... by Fweeky · 2006-11-03 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  Of course just because you can doesn't mean you should.
4. Re:Consistent CSS... by a.d.trick · 2006-11-03 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  You both correct. XHTML 1.0 allowed to be served as text/html in the same way that you're allowed to use the element. It's there if you absolutly must. Server it as such will cause the browser to treat it as HTML, completely. It may/may not render the same, and you won't get any of the features that XHTML provides (just like using won't give you the proper semantic benifits).
  
  As for putting it into quirks mode: quirks mode is a rather quirky feature (go figure) and if in IE the doctype has to be the first thing (no xml declaration). So many web developers just leave out the xml declaration and get the standards-compliant rendering from IE. Gecko browsers do it differently though, but their quirks mode is quite sane and probably won't screw you up, except for a few fring cases like images in tables.
Helpful thing by VincenzoRomano · 2006-11-02 19:32 · Score: 1

Try F1. This is the only help available for IE7!

--
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
1. Re:Helpful thing by UltraAyla · 2006-11-02 20:56 · Score: 1
  
  no, alt+F4 works well too
2. Re:Helpful thing by VincenzoRomano · 2006-11-02 21:14 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  It depends on your idea of "help". To be more precise:
  F1 is a hint
  ALT+F4 is a solution
  
  --
  Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
  For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
not sure about the install warning by acvh · 2006-11-02 19:43 · Score: 3, Informative

"The user will see a large window advising that IE7 is available to install, and the user will have three choices; install, don't Install, or install later."

I installed XP tonight and when I checked for updates there was, in the midst of 60 or so others, an IE7 entry. I unchecked it and was told that I had disabled a "critical update" and was advised to reenable it. I didn't, so I don't know if there would have been this other option he mentioned.
1. Re:not sure about the install warning by VGPowerlord · 2006-11-02 22:02 · Score: 1
  
  After it downloads the IE7 update, regardless of how many other updates you install, it pops up a window. So, in this instance, the article or wherever you got that is correct.
  
  --
  GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
2. Re:not sure about the install warning by acvh · 2006-11-03 00:50 · Score: 1
  
  "After it downloads the IE7 update, regardless of how many other updates you install, it pops up a window. So, in this instance, the article or wherever you got that is correct."
  
  thank you
3. Re:not sure about the install warning by pilkul · 2006-11-03 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  Well, they aren't. So stop complaining for once.
Extensions by wysiwia · 2006-11-02 19:54 · Score: 1

Well I hope IE7 has some kind of extensions as Firefox/SeaMonkey has. Then it would be possible to build one which loads Java script frameworks (e.g. Dojo toolkit, configurable) in the background before it's needed by a page. Sure I hope Firefox/SeaMonkey is faster in implementing such a feature yet it only makes sense if the vast majority of users have such a feature. IMO this kind of background loading of frameworks is the missing piece for a broad use of AJAX.

Tim Berners-Lee (http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/166) is also considering to enhance the web standards yet these changes should be implemented with extensions first so they can be used by experimental sites. IMO it's essential to add database tags to HTML so most current scripting could be eliminated. This would make the web a lot more secure than now.

O. Wyss

--
See http://wyoguide.sf.net/papers/Cross-platform.html
1. Re:Extensions by InfoHighwayRoadkill · 2006-11-02 23:58 · Score: 1
  
  so you think it would be more secure to have tags that anyone could see with view->source describing the content of your database?
  
  Remind me to look at your sites credit card information database if you ever implement it.
  
  JSTL has a series of sql tags which even the offical documentation recommends you dont use them apart for the most simple throw it together wireframe type thing.
  
  There is a reason for separating all this sort of stuff out you know.
  
  --
  another Roadkill on the Information Superhighway
Under WSUS by EvilNutSack · 2006-11-02 21:34 · Score: 1

It's been released as an Update Rollup not a Critical Update, so it's not being 'force-fed'.

--
--
Re:Solves all your IE7 problems by WilliamSChips · 2006-11-02 23:48 · Score: 1

Only if by "solve" you mean "create five times as many as with Firefox" :)

--
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Re:Solves all your IE7 problems by SpecialBrownies · 2006-11-03 00:44 · Score: 1

I second that. I do use all three.
currently updated Kaspersky6 thinks IE7 is a malicious, evil threat, wants it gone.
Not evil though, new politeness in fact,

When it crashes, pop-up says
"sorry for the inconvenience", it waits for me to click,
then it quietly goes away.
This site kept me from being burned by IE7 by forsetti · 2006-11-03 00:50 · Score: 1

Link

--
10b||~10b -- aah, what a question!
Not a critical update by gravis777 · 2006-11-03 02:48 · Score: 1

I mentioned this in yesterday's post, and will mention it again here:
IE7 ONLY shows up on the Windows Updates if you have installed an alpha or beta of it. If you are still running IE6, it does not force IE7 on you. We tested this here in our IT department after I noticed that my automatic update at home installed it.
1. Re:Not a critical update by theguru · 2006-11-03 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, not true. I've got a virgin machine here in my testing lab, with a fresh XP SP2 install, and boom, here comes IE7.
2. Re:Not a critical update by EMR · 2006-11-03 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  Are you sure you (or someone else) didn't install the IE7 blocker? As I know it shows up in the windows update website, but since I disabled the *critical install* in my office network it will not be pushed through automatic updates (and it actually worked!!) However I know several employees HAVE seen IE7 push itself through via the critical updates yesterday (and these are people who wouldn't touch IE unless forced to, which I forced one to at the office so I could bugtest the webapp). so it IS pushing itself through critical updates if you have Windows XP SP2 or Windows Server 2003 SP1.
3. Re:Not a critical update by Morlark · 2006-11-03 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  Mmm, interesting... I had a beta of IE7 at some point. I say had, because it managed to uninstall itself without telling me. Ah well, I don't imagine I'm missing much.
  
  --
  Santa's suicide mission go!
4. Re:Not a critical update by NerveGas · 2006-11-03 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  I have never installed IE6, yet IE 7 showed up as a critical update.
  
  I suspsect the reason is that the IE7 installation process makes you validate Windows, which other criticals haven't done.
  
  --
  Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
Re:Solve all your IE7 problems by lanswitch · 2006-11-03 03:58 · Score: 1

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Setup\7.0]
"DoNotAllowIE70"=dword:00000001
As A User by Lullabye_Muse · 2006-11-03 04:25 · Score: 1

IE7 is a hell of a lot better in ui and in functionality then ie6, and beats out Mozilla's current bloat (firefox evangelist versions .2-.8) but I still am using opera as my main browser.
Re:Another url by drinkypoo · 2006-11-03 05:16 · Score: 1

Seriously, can we get a Slashdot committee together to add "Old Ass Joke" to the mod system?

The only changes that have been made to moderation since I got here (I know I'm not the most venerable, although I did used to have a 5-digit UID and if I could remember what the name of the account was I might use it) have been hiding karma, instituting a karma kap, and removing the reminder to metamoderate from the front page (recent). All of these changes are IMO negative. Don't hold your fucking breath.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Another url by Knightking · 2006-11-03 06:29 · Score: 1

removing the reminder to metamoderate from the front page (recent)
Eh? Still shows up for me. http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/9172/metamodvm5.p ng
Re:Another url by drinkypoo · 2006-11-03 06:32 · Score: 1

Never mind, it's back. sigh. I wish they'd make up their fucking minds. That area has had some other crap in it for me for a couple weeks now, and it did yesterday, too. The only place meta-moderation has showed up for me recently has been on the page you see after submitting a comment.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Solves all your IE7 problems by Timbotronic · 2006-11-05 14:58 · Score: 1

Interesting. I also had Kaspersky (in the form of AOL Active Virus Shield) freak out when I tried to install the .NET 2.0 runtime the other day. It insisted it was a virus and there was no shutting it up so I said goodbye to Kaspersky and hello to AVG. Much better.

--
One of these days I'm moving to Theory - everything works there