Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft to Force IE7 Update on February 12th
Z80xxc! writes "InfoWorld is reporting that on February 12th, Microsoft will roll out Internet Explorer 7 through Windows Server Update Services to all systems - regardless of whether or not the update had been requested previously. The piece also mentions ways to prevent the update from occurring, for sysadmins who do not want to use IE7 on their systems. Microsoft claims that the decision was made due to 'security concerns'."
At least now there is only IE7 to support - IE6 should quickly fall from use.
Now we'll see which browser has the greatest growth rate in January!
Microsoft claims that the decision was made due to 'security concerns'."
So this means they're feeing insecure about their market share?
Go firefox!
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
N o o o o o o o!
IE6 is a huge pile of ******. These days, whenever I write a website, the procedure is always like this:
1. Test website in Firefox initially.
2. Verify that it works in Opera.
3. Verify that it works in Konqueror.
4. Verify that it works in Safari.
5. See it totally break down in IE6.
IE6 has too many rendering bugs. It's the sole cause of hours and hours of lost productivity. It's about time that it dies. IE7, although not as standards compliant as... uhm... pretty much every other browser on earth, is orders of magnitude better than IE6. People should be forced to use IE7 (or Firefox, or Opera, or whatever; just not IE6).
Not always an option. Intranet apps are often browser particular. And with crazy things like Active X controls. Reprogramming them will cost too much.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
You must be new here.
What's with web developers that have to test html code on IE6? It's really a shame for MS that you can't have IE6 and IE7 installed side by side (I know it IS somehow possible, but that's way too complicated and not the point here). To bad that you always need a second (virtual) machine, just to test html code. And now they are forcing the upgrade...Stupid.
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
The funny thing is that I've had quite a number of pages that worked fine in IE6, worked fine in firefox (and others), but totally bombed in IE7. In addition, there are a number of companies which in-house sites which are *not* IE7 compatible (yes, sometimes due to less than spectacular coding that IE6 compensated for... but it's still not a good idea for an upgrade to *break* compatibility across the board).
I wonder if it would be possible for MS to allow use of both legacy IE6 and IE7 somehow. At least if they're going to force an "upgrade" they can leave a fallback path for affected users.
...For web standards at least.
:)
Quite frankly only those who have built IE-only sites for IE6 should really suffer. I think it's all worth it if we can finally have a critical mass of users supporting standards even a little better. As a former web developer I'm biased though.
.: Max Romantschuk
>>My company has a few dozen internal applications which fail when using them on IE7.
They must be pretty damn bad applications in the first place if moving from IE6 to IE7 'breaks' them!
How does IE7 break them?
iptables -A INPUT -s update.microsoft.com -j DROP
at least for a month
I can't wait until Ron Paul gets elected, personally. At least then we won't have to deal with M$ and the government breathing down our necks.
You seem to have a pretty realistic view. Microsoft will release a standards compliant browser around the time that Ron Paul is actually elected president. You just forgot the cold fusion powered flying cars.
Well, thanks to the Internet, I'm now bored with sex.
Ah, except that in its current incarnation Firefox is a bit sucky too. It's better than IE on many levels, especially security, but it's no longer the snappy and lightweight browser it once was. Memory usage is terrible, I find the UI sluggish, render times are far from ideal and the whole thing just feels... not what it was.
Hopefully 3.0 will fix that, but for the meantime I'll stick with Safari.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
Will this upgrade also include a (forced) installation of Silverlight?
If at first you don't succeed, call it version 1.0.
They were coded to comply with IE6's rendering model, which isn't standards-compliant. There are many, many in-house applications like these, since developers only have to test for the browser version mandated by IT.
Aspies for Ron Paul
You forgot to add 'driven by genetically engineered anthrpomorphic dolphins' after 'flying cars'. Paul is as likely to get elected as my plumber.
I think its more like IE7 can expose where the app was already broken.
rewriting history since 2109
I think this is great news. Quote: (...) and it has posted guidelines on how to ward off the automatic update if admins want to keep the older IE6 browser on their companies' machines. So you can keep IE6 if you want to, but all the non-tech savvy users get a safer, more standards compliant browser.
They must be pretty damn bad applications in the first place if moving from IE6 to IE7 'breaks' them!
1. Get spec: Must work on IE6
2. Design methodology: Hack it around until it looks right
3. Test methodology: Click around in IE6
If you have paid no heed to standards or alternative browsers, it's trivially simple to make a site that breaks on IE7.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
Where I work, the ASP.Net apps work only with IE6 with ActiveX enabled. Trying to use the apps with IE7 is a huge mess and causes support requests.
Also, there is a college in our campus where about 900 students use Moodle very regularly on XP. Moodle has been working fine on IE6 and lately Firefox; but for some reason the IE6 experience seems to be the best. Now if there is an auto-update to IE7, all hell will break loose.
If IE6 is a security hazard; and MS is not keen to resolve them; why not open the source; so interested customers can do so themselves?
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Well, the apps worked as needed up to this point. The requirements documents for each list IE6 as the target browser. Now that IE7 is the standard, they all have to be updated.
Aspies for Ron Paul
IE7 in quirks mode mostly replicates the IE6 way of rendering. I think that you're trying to blame IE for your bad software. There are many, many Microsoft ASP and ASP.NET developers who are just total dumb-asses and couldn't write a clean line of HTML if their life depended on it. I don't mind, it makes me look good and it also means I can earn tons of money making things work :)
This is somewhat off topic, but whatever.
Has anyone else noticed how terrible tabbed browsing is in IE7?
Let's just say, hypothetically, I'm at my favorite porn site, looking at thumbnails. The plan is to ctrl-click the thumbnails and open them in tabs.
Once you get enough tabs open, there comes a point where IE7 bogs down tremendously when asked to dispaly jpgs, each in her own tab. Symptoms include clicks on the first tab are no longer acknowledged, and tremendous slowness moving between tabs.
After that, there comes a point where your ctrl-click won't even spawn a new tab.
Tabbed browsing is a great "innovation" in the IE product line, but in terms of performance and not being a resource hog, IE7 is easily outpaced by Mozilla and many others.
... on dialup access?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force-feeding
...I wish there was another way of making it.
OK, note to self: week of Feb 12, expect many calls from windows-using clients...
"...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
How long do you need? IE7 was released in August 2005 so Web developers could start testing and fixing their apps well ahead of the October 2006 release.
Wubi, which "is an unofficial Ubuntu installer for Windows users that will bring you into the Linux world with a single click."
Microsoft just wants to remind everyone who uses FireFox that IE is not their default browser.
IE6 has fallen behind Firefox in browser share and IE7 is behind as well - at least by W3 stats.
IF M$ forces everyone to IE7 it will combine the two IE stats and make it the #1 browser by share again. But if you look at the trend Firefox is growing at a steady pace every year. By doing the force upgrade more IE users may say "enough" and take another look at downloading and installing Firefox. The way to tell that would be if the IE share drops drastically and the Firefox share jumps drastically. I'm kind of hoping this happens. If might mean a huge defiance against M$'s monopolistiic ways.
The Truth is a Virus!!!
I am not a web browser tester but... lately Firefox seems to be performing much better than it used to. It's still using a bit of memory, but I'm not getting any crashes, or aberrant behaviors. The worst I've noticed in months is Foxmarks sucking the life out of my cpu when synchronizing, but that can be monitored/avoided.
Literally the only time I've been annoyed with FF in a year is having to load IE6/7 to open a website that refused to recognize FF using IETab. And in that case, it's not FF that annoys me. I'd put the coder of that site on the DHS watchlist if I could!@@#$%@$#%
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
My understanding is that firefox is generally considered to be a poor browser on a mac. I use it whenever I'm on a mac just so that I can use *some* of the keyboard shortcuts I'm used to, but I believe Safari is better in many regards.
As for 3.0, I'm using the beta and I'd have to say that render times do seem to be improved. Memory usage doesn't seem to be much better than previous versions; After leaving it running for about 14 hours (mostly overnight) I'm at 200 mb memory usage with two tabs open, one being this page. I know 2.x would get up to about 370 mb, however this would be after several days with 10+ tabs, and 200 mb seems about right for where it would be now. I don't care too much since my machine can handle that, but it matters to most people on slashdot.
I am not an expert. If I am misled in something, please correct me.
IT still needs to approve the update via WSUS for IE 7 to get deployed. If its not an approved update you don't get it.
Of course this is Slashdot, you are allowed to spout all the innacurate crap you want, as long as its crap slung at Microsoft.
If people had bothered to read they would have noticed this in the "warning" from Microsoft: you have configured WSUS to "auto-approve" Update Rollup packages (this is not the default configuration), Windows Internet Explorer 7 will be automatically approved for installation after February 12, 2008 and consequently, you may want to take the actions below to manage how and when this update is installed
Thanks again Slashdot for proving the Linux camp really are full of a bunch of anti-Microsoft loonies who read only what they want to read.
Argh,
On my home PC IE7, not only makes it crawl (even if it is a 2Gb dual core machine), but also breaks the Creative device explorer. Not to mention the that the poorly crafted render and input loop minces a WTS server with only a few simultaneous IE users - last month we reverted back to IE6 and saw a 100% performance increase!!
Matt
Active X should be banned across the board in any company that even remotely considers security an issue. Intranet apps of the type you talk about need to be reprogrammed, because they probably won't be maintainable even in the short term.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
FF 2.x is worse than the other iterations. You can turn off spell check, that helps some. There's some tuning parameters you can set to release memory/pages in cache and limit it to those in the browser currently. Other than that, the core problem with all browsers is that the JS engine in them sucks rocks, and the single threaded nature of that beast is what kills performance when you have lots of plugins or heavy JS pages.
FF 3.0 reportedly is much lighter in memory and faster in performance, but I've not tried it yet. I downloaded it this weekend, and will try to find some time to install it shortly.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Yeah, the security of IE6's place as the monopoly browser is in jeopardy, so Microsoft has to force its customers to install a Microsoft browser that has a chance of competiing with FireFox.
I don't like what they have done with IE7.. especially removed support for Active Desktop that was very good and being a standard for 12 years..
Screw HTML and CSS standards compliance; the only thing I'm holding out for is sweet, sweet 24-bit PNG support. No more stupid matte colours, and no spending ages getting fiddly non-square image shapes to layer onto complex backgrounds nicely. Plus: 'glass' background effects. Hoo-fucking-rah.
The sooner Microsoft push this update on everyone, the better. After all, it's not like I use IE - why should I care whether people want the update or not?
=w=
Does anyone have accurate statistics on IE version usage right now? Unfortunately my own stats really only break down between browser vendors and it's difficult to get per-version stats...
It's probably wise to start planning to stop supporting IE6 when it's usage drops below a certain percentage - the sooner we get rid of IE6 the better. Of course, a lot of users are stuck with it - but when things start breaking, they'll get the hint to either upgrade (if that's even possible) or just switch to a better browser.
Some stats here and a little blurb here
I'm running Minefield (Firefox 3 nightlies) on my work Windows laptop. It's very much a nightly test build - some days' builds crash like bastards - but in general it's smaller, faster and better than Firefox 2, not to mention having various little things that make it slicker and nicer to use. More of my favoured extensions are OK with it too. Firefox 3 is going to be a real winner.
(And at Wikimedia we're very much looking forward to the VIDEO element supplying Ogg Theora support right there in the browser. Then we can drag Nokia and Apple kicking and screaming to the party.)
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Perhaps if they were so concerned about security, their next update would be to roll out a mandatory Linux core to upgrade their NT core, due to security concerns.
You've been served.
I'm aware of several organizations that foolishly listened to MS on how coding to their browser using their tools would save them money. Apparently not. The initial roll-out of a POC was seemingly fast, but then came real requirements, and the cost of dev quickly came on par to writing the app to standards in the first place. Then came the quirks, and the company, now x$'s into the program, mandated a homogeneous browser installation on all equipment so the broken app could work. Now MS comes along and forces you to update and you'll have to rewrite those apps yet again.
Will they learn? Sadly, probably not.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
The place I work uses activeX components to log into the citrix-based intranet client. They have big signs for the last couple years stating that they will not support Firefox. Over the last year they also had to add a sign that they will not cover IE7. Should be interesting to see what they do now. Maybe I'll drop them an email and ask. :-)
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
According to the article, it says as long as you don't turn on automatic updates, it won't update to IE7. Personally I use SeaMonkey myself. No where near as lightweight as Firefox probably but it works extremely well.
I'm not at all happy about this. I use Firefox and it fit my needs. I don't need the IE7 at all on my system. I think I will just disable the security updates.
I can feel a new wave of Firefox users coming!
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
>>If you have paid no heed to standards or alternative browsers, it's trivially simple to make a site that breaks on IE7.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant: a pretty damn bad application.
(...and if you're using WU at work? Then either you've got a tiny company, or your CIO needs to be fired).
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
I keep seeing people make statements like this, but when I ask for steps to reproduce any problem, no one can seem to come up with any. Can you show me how I could see memory usage significantly worse than other browsers, user interface responsiveness significantly worse than other browsers, render times significantly worse than other browsers, or any other problem in Firefox?
If you're having problems with Firefox, you may want to try creating a new profile or other suggestions from the MozillaZine Knowledge Base. I see the suggestions help users all the time in the MozillaZine forums.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
That's really the ultimate irony of this whole situation. People aren't switching to IE7 because lots of corporate apps were suckered into MS' non-standards lock-in of IE6, which they implemented to prevent people from using other browsers.
Cut to several years later and they find that they have an "other browser" and no one will switch to it.
I can't tell you how many service calls I've done where I hear that something has stopped working after IE7 was installed. It's mostly BECAUSE of the added security that perfectly legitimate web based office applications fail. I've had 1 call where an active X based IP camera would fail to install the application because all the active X junk was turned off by default, even if you tell it it's ok. The same thing happened at a dermatology clinic where they also used a web based application with Active X. It might be better at this and that with stolen tabs from firefox but there is still to much that doesn't work with it. At least not without changing settings. Large corporations shouldn't be forced to send their desktop support out to change security settings on 50 PC's because now all of a sudden they have IE7 that they didn't want or need. I agree. Make apps work in firefox.
---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"
Well there's your problem - or at least a good part of it.
You should code your applications to work with a compliant rendering model first of all. They you use CSS workarounds to cater for IE6's (or whoever's) broken rendering model. It's actually much easier and saves loads of grief in the long run.
Coding for IE6 and having your app break in a compliant browser (IE7 is 'almost' compliant) is just unforgivable.
IE6's rendering is borked for sure, but it's not so bad that you need to write app code specifically for it. Simple design, clean markup and a few conditional CSS hacks can make an app work with just about any browser.
Just curious - does this mean that you have to upgrade to IE7? I'd prefer to keep my IE6 as of now, for testing etc. Yes, I could do all sorts of hacks to have them co-existing, or install it on my Linux box, but I'd still prefer to have IE6 on my good ol' XP machine.
I already have one up above that:
access-list 112 deny ip any 207.46.0.0 0.0.255.255 log
access-list 112 deny ip any 65.52.0.0 0.3.255.255 log
access-list 112 deny ip any 213.199.128.0 0.0.15.255 log
access-list 112 deny ip any 213.199.144.0 0.0.7.255 log
access-list 112 deny ip any 207.68.128.0 0.0.63.255 log
access-list 112 deny ip any 207.68.192.0 0.0.15.255 log
access-list 112 permit ip any any
(for the truly paranoid)
I have a Canadian Dollar here that says that this "update" is to shift the stats. As of right now, Firefox is p0wning IE6 OR IE7, but not IE6 AND IE7.
FedEx has declared IE 7 off limits until further notice, so there is one place it won't get implemented. And all employees that want to access the LAN infrastructure are further forbidden to go to IE 7. Makes my decision easy on what to do about this, as I need my machines to be able to access that net.
I'm using Firefox 3.0 Beta 2 right now, and thus far, it's way, way snappier than 2.0.x. Perhaps a better example of the improved performance and memory handling: this particular process has been up for 11 days, and is still quite responsive.
The wise follow a damned path, for to know is to be forsaken.
forced me to switch to firefox a "long" time ago. This news is just a reminded of why I use as little MS products as possible.
Nick
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
1. Use the browser daily
2. See terrible memory usage in your favorite memory-usage utility (Taskmanager, whatever).
Currently, firefox is using 20% on average of the primary core of my Core Duo T2400, and approximately 600 MB of RAM. I have 25 tabs open: mostly messageboards, Slashdot, news sites, google, etc.
This instance of Firefox has been open for about three days.
Whether or not it's any worse than any other browser... so what? It's still annoying. Being the best of a bad lot isn't much of a commendation.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
When I say "steps to reproduce" I mean a specific, detailed set of steps to reliably reproduce the problem. Read How to Report Bugs Effectively and Please file good memory leak bugs for more information.
If it's not worse than any other browser, why complain specifically about Firefox? Why not just say all browsers suck, without specifically mentioning Firefox?
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Yet another horrible decision by MS. One that will make us more open to attacks in the future. How? because when people get "updates" that radically change the software product they usually don't like them, therefore they will turn updates off as to not get another "IE7" making them more easy to attack. Next, by pushing this out, people will automatically think that any change to their browser is done by an update, already people think that 10 spyware items crowding up IE is perfectly normal and when you change them to a different browser they complain because they liked the weather feature of *insert adware/spyware here* and even after you tell them to use Firefox they end up still using IE and you have to do the exact same thing over again. Whenever people start to think that their computer should change software on them, we have a problem. Even though this will make web developers lives easier in the short term, look to much more spyware/adware/botnets in the future.
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
So the handy dandy window listing the 100's of updates you are missing to keep your WinXP machine up-to-date just popped up over the weekend. No clue why. After seeing this slashdot story, I scrolled down and saw "Windows Internet Exploer 7.0 for Windows XP". I read the details and the last line says:
"This update includes Windows Genuine Advantage Validation."
I guess so few people are "choosing" to install their spyware that they now they are bundling it with other stuff? This is AFTER Microsloth said they weren't going to do such a thing:
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2007/10/04/internet-explorer-7-update.aspx
Marc
-- PGP keyID: 0x4C95994D
I quit supporting IE6 once IE7 had been on Windows Updates (for XP) for a couple of weeks. That was, what, nearly a year ago now? Windows 98 users can download Firefox or Opera, or they can upgrade to an OS that the vendor still supports.
People who specifically want to reminisce about the nineties can keep IE6, IE5, or NCSA Mosaic for all I care, that's their business. But if you want to browse the web, which changes over time, and see it the way it's intended to be, you kind of have to accept the occasional update.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Not only are most of Firefox's "unique" features copied from Opera, but Opera is also a remarkably fast and lightweight browser with most stuff built right in. It also happens to work in most variations of Linux including Sugar and it's used on the Nintendo Wii. Not to sound like a fanboy, but it's a far superior browser to anything else I've found. Other than the source, I'm not sure I see the big deal with Firefox. It's bloated and feature light to start with and as you add on more plugins the bloat just gets bigger. Is seeing the source really worth using an inferior product?
Nobody is forcing you to use WSUS and WU/MU. We use something else, a product which doesn't automatically assign patches without asking.
Security concerns? At least M$ could have come up with a better pretext, say transparency support for png's.
"The body may heal, but the mind is not always so resilient." -- Deus Ex: Human Revolution
Oh, yeah, and speaking as a web developer, the IE8 update can't come too soon. The minute that's available on Windows Update for XP, my days of supporting IE7 will be numbered. IE6? That's already a memory, as far as I'm concerned. If you want to keep it on your corporate intranet for the support of some line-of-business application, that's fine, as long as your users either A) don't also need to browse the web or B) also have access to a modern browser.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
I just launched FireFox on the same machine. It has one tab open showing a blank page. This takes 47MB of RAM (not too excessive) and 3% of my CPU. Apparently it takes FireFox as much CPU to be inactive showing a blank page as it takes Safari to show 33 tabs and have me typing in one of them. Oh, and I have no plugins loaded in either browser.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Here we go AGAIN!
WSUS or Windows Server Update Systems is an addon for Microsoft Windows networks. It allows you to control which updates clients get and instead of every client going to MS's servers, clients go to the WSUS server which can save a crapload of bandwidth. Regular home users are not affected.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
And it does! microsoft couldnt have timed this worse.
The browser they stood a chance against was FF2 (IMO it was a fairly sucky FF) not nearly as clear cut FF1.5 v IE6.
They push this out feb
Then FF3 (which is already better than FF2) will be realesed in Q2 and (unless some idiot bloats it up at the final beta) be magnificently better
Then by Q3 all the extensions are up and working 100% (most are 90% atm) and its back to the FF1.5 vs IE6 difference.
ATM i only use IE at uni for short browsing sessions (like quick checking timetables), IE7 wont even have the fast bootup time. Hopefully uni arnt going to run an unsuported browser so well probably get opera or someother light browser, any suggestions for a windows fast to load browser?
Apparently a long time. I have several medical clients who cannot upgrade to IE7 because their multitude of web applications with different hospitals and remote offices simply have not been able to upgrade as of yet. Some of these web application shops have a small number of programmers and cannot keep up with demand.
By that they mean that you have to pass the validation test in order to install it.
Put an ad link on the page with Upgrade IE with the MS logo...and have it point to Firefox.
I've got money that says more than half the sheeple out there would think it was the new version of IE.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Thanks MS for a !(lovely birthday present)
I work on an AJAX application, and Microsoft Visual Studio's debugger doesn't work with IE7. Most of our dev team still uses IE6 for this reason.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
By programming more to the web standards, so their application would work in IE6, IE7, Firefox, Opera or any good client available. Web enhancements should not be the major navigation for a website; they should be enhancements.
I am already telling years to some to keep a design basic and enhance it with css, java etc for the powerusers; but don't enhance it to an OS or specific browser. I guess now they'll understand why.
Tiny differences in a webapplication cannot be a problem,
but if they are going to program only towards one platform they get burned later (now)...
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
I have verified that on every computer on our network that had IE7 installed, it doubled application load times. Browsing network shares took longer as well. When you have departments working 50-60 hour weeks, this kind of performance hit is totally unacceptable. I don't know if Microsoft has fixed this yet or not, but unless and until they do, we can't afford to have our productivity killed like that.
How's that for a reason not to upgrade?
P.S.--I completely understand that IE7 is more secure. If MS could fix the performance problem, I'd roll it out in a heartbeat.
This isn't the sig you're looking for...
Seriously, the interface is the main reason I can't stand IE 7 (well, that and my copy of Win2k running in Parallels). If I could have the IE 7 rendering with the IE 6 "look and feel" then I would update it.
(Of course, I generally use Seamonkey on Linux and Firefox on Mac, so this is just for the times I find myself stuck on a Windows machine.)
IE7 breaks Oracle Application Server 10iR1 and 10iR2 apps. We run a huge enterprise application called Sungard Banner (a college & university management system, kinda like SAP, PeopleSoft and Siebel is for big corps, Banner is the same but for large universities). Banner is written to use Oracle Application Server 10g as the middleware web host, using JINITIATOR inside the browser as the actual java client runtime engine, and while it appears to launch and run mostly OK with IE7, it is not officially supported and there are lots of applets that crash the browser (it just goes poof and vanishes off the screen with no error messages or event log entries) and leave stranded Oracle sessions and partial transactions waiting to be either committed or rolled back until the database engine declares the transactions dead after a timeout and then rolls them back automatically. It's a big hassle to the users. Therefore, IE7 is not considered a supported browser and there are no plans to make it supported, IE6 is officially supported, and works just fine. Netscape Navigator is also an officially supported browser, but nobody wants to go there... Netscape is considered dead-end browser. Firefox 2.x will work great, but is not officially supported, and requires manually copying a DLL file and making a registry entry to make it work, which is a great hassle to deploy on thousands of desktop PCs whereas the IE6 and Netscape browsers automatically install and configure the JINITIATOR client piece the very first time the users visits the intranet server, without any intervention.
Bury you head in the sand for years, then when the fan has been buried in shit, whine you need more time.
This are internally developed apps, so why on earth did you develop all these years for the pile of shit that is IE when free and better browsers were availabe. Browsers that cost nothing to update and that follow standards so that you can switch between them at your choice, perhaps even use an NON-windows OS entirely.
No, you enslaved yourselve to MS by your own free will or incomepetence and are now crying because MS finally has decided that they can't delay any longer because IE6 is hurting their business and forces people like you to upgrade.
NONE of this wouldhave happened if you had a brain and just switched your company to a better browser years ago. Call it leadership, call it having a clue, you apparently have neither and now expect us to care.
This is EXACTLY what people have been warning about all this time, use MS software and you are at their mercy.
You made your bed, can you guess the next bit?
This is exactly with the whole ODF/OOXML is about as well, can I take a wild guess as to the deployment of non-ms controlled standards in documents in your company?
Oh and if someone else in IT forced you to do this, simply lay the bill for this adjustment to the enforced IE7 migration on their desk, that is standard office culture. Someone forces crap on you, you make the costs coming out of their budget.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Microsoft is finally pulling the 'security' card to force users to new versions of their products. It must be nice to be a MSFT programmer when you don't have to work on one rev old products no matter how large the install base.
Seriously, it blew me away in the mid 90s when the press+dog just let Microsoft refuse to provide USB support for the previous OS product and claimed that if you want USB support, you must purchase a new computer or fumble through an upgrade. IIRC, Windows 98 and NT v4 were such products though NT v4 was a larger update since they both moved the graphics subsystem into the kernel and added the win95 shell/desktop along with adding USB support.
I would love to be a fly on the wall for all those meetings they have on how to get customers to upgrade. There's got to be some very funny and some very scary recommendations being thrown around those meetings. It's got to be tough for Microsoft, wanting customers to be lame enough to not look outside of Microsoft for software solutions yet at the same time, be willing to keep upgrading Microsoft products every couple of months and like it.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Because I'm using firefox.
Really, I don't think it's a 'bug' so much as it is shoddy coding and bloat in general. They've seen no desire or need to fix that to this point, so I don't see why filing endless bug reports telling them to clean up and slim down will help.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
- Install your favourite flavour of GNU/Linux
Cheaper said than done. Plenty of hardware in and connected to my current PC isn't certified on any distribution of GNU/Linux or *BSD; in fact, some components (such as a Microtek ScanMaker 4850 USB flatbed scanner) are known to be unsupported. For people who use a web site to sell something, this may be viable, but until web development becomes my profession, I cannot afford to rip out half of my PC and purchase new hardware just to test web sites in IE 6. Instead, I would need to use another method recommended by cbart387. Voila. Side-by-side installation of multiple Internet Explorer versions, for free. So do you have leads on some (small f) free hardware that I could use with a (big F) Free operating system?As I've said before, the problem is that we can never seem to recreate the problems users complain about. When we ask for a detailed set of steps to reproduce the problem, we almost always either get none or we cannot reproduce the problem. You can't fault developers for not fixing problems, when hardly anyone can seem to point out any. You need to report the bugs first, and then the developers will fix them.
I do not seem to experience these problems you refer to. Others I talk to in the MozillaZine forums do not, either. When people come into the forums complaining about problems, we point them to the Knowledge Base, and when they follow the instructions there, they seem to quickly fix their problems.
If you are unwilling or unable to report or fix problems in Firefox, you should probably switch to another browser. There's no sense putting up with problems, as there are many good browsers out there. And it's even more pointless to keep complaining about vague problems such as "shoddy coding and bloat in general" when you cannot point out even one specific problem, no matter how trivial.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Ahh, the old troll is back.
That's why sysadmins at big companies waste all sorts of time testing out these updates before rolling them out.
I'd fire any sysadmin that blindly rolls out updates to Linux / Unix machines. Free software is not immune to such problems. I know, because I did run Linux. Updates broke other applications. Opps.
Bit rot is inevitable and sooner or later their computers don't work at all.
Bit rot is a myth. Of course I expect you to use myths to try and use as arguing points.
Things are much better in the free software world, where things are tested and can easily be fixed before being pushed onto the public. Things are broken from time to time but those are exceptions that prove the rule.
Its been a very, very long time since updates have broken a large number of users programs. Sorry, MS has improved, whether you like it or not. Updates breaking systems are also exceptions today, not the rule.
Reasonable standards and excellent package management take the dread out of updates and software experimentation.
Wow. Only a troll will tell you with a straight face that package managment on Lix is "excellent." I guess that's why there's no more RPM hell right?
Knowing you can install and rip software out, even kernels, without much harm is one of the great advantages of free software.
I'm not sure you've ever really used a Linux system, as this just isn't true. It also doesn't help those you claim to be considered about; IT departments (who aren't coders) and home users (certainly not coders). Oh well.
...Internet Explorer 6 launched in 2001. It's around seven years old at this point.
Seven years.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
I think if Microsoft actually does this, they will piss off even more people.. An example would be my dad, who has to use a program called MOP to remotely connect to work, and it only works if IE6 is installed. This is s program that is used by Shell Canada (I guess Shell Group now) and would require a lot of work to make it work with IE7. This is just a small example of an instance where I see Microsoft creating extra work for people. First with hardware compatibility and now with software? Even so, anyone computer savvy doesn't use IE7 except to do Windows Update, at least IMO (or use Windows at all, unless they have too).
And while we're on the subject, has anyone else noticed how terrible tabbed browsing is in Firefox? You can't even detach the tabs.
Adobe holds a patent on the idea. They even used to brag about it.
It would be great if you could get Adobe to give the Mozilla Foundation a license.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
And you can do brain surgery while standing in a helicopter during a hurricane, that doesn't mean that's how you should do the job. I've done several intranet sites where I was very happy to have IE as the required browser for all users. I don't think I would have been as successful if I had to worry about cross-browser compatibility at just about every turn, yet I was never completely comfortable doing it that way. The solutions were always vulnerable to the cancer of browser and system upgrades and changes. They had a limited life expectancy and were inherently unstable because of the changing nature of how the browsers adhere to the standards. As long as I or my teams had some sort of administration control of at least the server, and hopefully, any planned changes in company policy concerning the computers the workers used, it was still a manageable solution. As a stand-alone/leave-alone solution, meh, I just hoped the checks cleared before the company broke something.
rewriting history since 2109
When I do that, Firefox uses about 100 MB of memory, about the same as any other browser. Besides, you give nearly exactly David Baron's example of a useless bug report. In order for problems to be fixed, we must come up with specific problems, along with a detailed set of instructions for how others can reproduce them. Then we can file a bug report on each specific issue. Can you point out any specific problems in Firefox?
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Yea, I can see this now...
Employee: We need to reprogram our intranet. It will cost about $150,000 to get it done.
Boss: What is the business need for this.
Employee: Active X should be banned across the board and considers security an issue and won't be maintainable even in the short term.
Boss: How are they not maintainable? A request I had for a fix last week was just finished and it works like a charm. Only Employees have access to our intranet our Internet Explorer settings are different for Intranet vs Internet, and our firewall is well maintained and secured... So why do we need to pay $150,000 to upgrade...
Employee: Well there is an issue of future development getting rid of Active X.
Boss: Well at that time we should be ready for a New system anyways then we can think about it then.
Employee: But I want to use firefox and not use IE out of the fact I don't want to say I use Microsoft products.
Boss: That sounds like a personal problem not a business problem. We are not going to pay the wages of 2-3 Full time IT Employees to remake what already works and works well. Just because of some silly political view about software. We use what works. The point of software is to save the company money and get the job done, and insure policies are followed. Not to push some ideology. Unless you can prove this to me I will need to deny your request.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Wow, that is ancient for sure. So why are people not wanting to update the browser? Heck, Firefox has been around with better features for far longer than MS IE 7. Maybe, by forcing the browser into the OS to fool an anti-trust judge also removed the browser from the mindset of needing updating like regular applications?
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Prepare for HUGE problems with some older HP printers. When I updated to IE7, my HP software (HP director) for my all-in-one 1350 HP printer stopped working, it is a known issue with IE7 that HP has known about but has refused to release a real fix(updated installer). As long as you do not uninstall the software you can find fixes online, but if you uninstall it (like I did), you are screwed unless you do a rollback before IE7.
I have indeed pointed out a specific problem. The browser leaks memory like a sieve, and uses enormous quantities of processing power when doing apparently nothing. Not only is this a specific problem, it's very significant.
I cannot give you any specific set of steps to reproduce this problem, because there are none. Any use of the browser will inevitably result in the problem arising; the only difference is how much time it takes for the problem to arise. It can take minutes, or hours, or days until the browser becomes unusable due to bloat.
Tell me, how do I 'report' such an issue? How do I give you a specific set of steps, when no set of steps is necessary?
With regard to other browsers, they're all bad. As I said, Firefox is the best of a bad lot, but that says nothing good about firefox, just that Opera and IE7 are even more crappy.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
.. the security of Microsoft's revenue stream.
No, I'd say it's just plain lazyness.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
This isn't as much of a problem on my six month old laptop, but a web browser is not something that should require a state-of-the-art system to run.
Yes, it uses too much memory when left running with multiple tabs opened. Numerous people have complained about this, and they get dismissed for not providing detailed technical information on the problem. This is not acceptable with a program that's above version 2.0.
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
No, that is not one specific problem. That is two entire classes of bugs, memory leaks and CPU performance problems. If you are having problems like those, they are indeed significant. On the other hand, if you cannot give any set of steps to reproduce any problem, I cannot file a bug report and the problem cannot be fixed.
As I've said, I do not experience any "bloat" problem, and most others on the MozillaZine forums do not, either. Those that do have those problems report that following the suggestions in the Knowledge Base clears their problems up. Have you even tried the one suggestion of creating a new profile? If you continue to have problems, discuss them in the MozillaZine forums. There's no point in making vague complaints here, as they do not get us one step closer to making Firefox better or fixing a problem on your computer.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
On my site for January:
Browser\Hits\Total traffic percentage
MSIE 75533 63.2 %
Msie 7.0 35980 30.1 %
Msie 6.0 39247 32.8 %
Msie 5.5 91 0 %
Msie 5.17 14 0 %
Msie 5.01 67 0 %
Msie 5.00 32 0 %
Msie 5.0 48 0 %
Msie 4.01 4 0 %
Msie 4.00 12 0 %
IE6 is still winning.
Well, I am not dismissing you. I am asking for more detailed information so that I can file a bug report so the problem can be fixed. Until you provide that information, I simply cannot do so. I'm not denying any problem or dismissing you in any way. I'm asking you politely for what the problem is. Could you tell me please? Specifically, I need a detailed set of instructions for how to reproduce the problem.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Microsoft is still in business? I thought they went out of business a while ago - their market share has been dwindling, their products are buggy and insecure, they keep violating anti-trust laws, etc.
I guess there is a group of diehard fanatics who keep using their stuff, keeping them alive.
I never trust a company with an animated favicon.ico
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
There's definitely some truth to that. Consider this: Later this year, Internet Explorer (alone, never mind Windows) will have basically been continuously exploitable for 11 years running ... now if most organisations still insist on sticking to it, I can only conclude that they're just not all that worried about the security risks --- maybe the problems and risks just don't bother people as much as they should. I think it's also reasonable to conclude that if Microsoft hasn't managed to make IE even reasonably secure (I know there's no such as 100% secure, but there are plenty of shades of grey) after 11 years, they are never going to, and even if they are, they certainly must have lost the benefit of the doubt by now.
.... some time later...
... <squirms> well, umm, their fix is to disable Active X....
CEO: So we're down. What's the problem?
Boss: This new cross-site scripting worm exploit infected our entire system and all of our servers, and possibly some of our customers.
CEO: So, how'd this infect our system so quickly?
Boss: Our intranet apps use Active X, and it exploited a security hole.
CEO: So MS is at fault? Have you contacted them about a fix?
Boss: umm, well, they don't have a fix....
CEO: What? Well tell them to find one!
Boss:
CEO: Really?!? And how long has that been known?
Boss: About 5 years.....
CEO: And why haven't we fixed this?
Boss: <seriously sweating and squirming now>well, it would have cost $150K to upgrade the system...
CEO: what? Only $150K!?!?!?! We're losing millions an hour right now!!!! How long till you have it fixed?
Boss: well, it'll be about 3 days before the external systems are all back up and we'll lose about 4 days of historical data....
<Just picture the CEO's face at about this point....>
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
I am not trying to troll or anything. Seriously though, I am so feking happy I switched to a Mac 2 years ago. I was offered a job recently that would require me to switch back to Windows. Even though its more money, I am going to turn it down. I love the fact that when I get to work, I deal with work issues ... rather then fixing or maintaining my own machine. Mac has spoiled me, I can't use another Windows machine again. Hell, I can't use another Linux desktop again. (Keep in mind, I still sware by using Linux as a server)
IE7 was released 18th October 2006. RC1 was 24th August, and the first pre-build was January 31st. You've had almost two years to catch up with the latest version, it's not like they've suddenly sprung the changes!
Tell that to my CEO/CIO when they like to go 3-5 years between upgrades. And you have to wait a year for your ERP to use it. It is impossible to change this fast.
Got money, no problem.
Otherwise, go FF and Linux. Much more stable, secure, open, standard ...
Boeing is going to be very upset what the cal/cert department determines that all their automated shop floor equipment is out of compliance and shuts down production.
Have gnu, will travel.
"YOOZ Netscape... YOOZ Netscape... YOOZ Netscape... YOOZ Netscape..."
"YOOZ Op-ra... YOOZ Op-ra... YOOZ Op-ra"
"YOOZ FireFox... YOOZ FireFox... YOOZ FireFox..."
"YOOZ Konq-RER... YOOZ Konq-RER... YOOZ Konq-RER..."
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
And in four years when the upgrades to these webapps rely on the bugs and problems in IE7 to function we'll have this discussion again. At that time try not to treat them like idiots. They're not stupid. They're just crazy.
Crazy = doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result each time.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
It sounds like your getting the same results as Firefox on Vista. I've had complaints from users with Vista "i can't use Firefox. it is unbearably slow on my new laptop". All of the complaints come from users that had been given new laptops with Vista on it. The users are also technological morons but...
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
I know Lacerte 2004 and older will not work with IE 7.
Also Quickbooks 2005 and prior also will not work with IE 7.
See also:
http://smalltechnotes.blogspot.com/2006/10/quickbooks-and-internet-explorer-7.html
A large part of the problem here is that this isn't a simple 1->2->3 progression. There are days when I can use firefox all day and have it be snappy and only use about 100MB active with about 500MB in virtual memory.
There are other days, however, when Firefox uses 700MB of active memory and nearly 2.5GB of virtual space. Now, this is the result of 2-5 days worth of browsing. How in your right mind do you expect me to keep track of every click that I made over 5 days so that you can file a bug report? Do you have a keytrapper and site visitation storage engine that keeps up every image, flash video and html of the site? After all, it could be any of that. I don't mind trying to help out, and I'm sure a large portion of the FF community doesn't either, but we've gone beyond what the end users can do to help you with this issue, percieved or real, and it's now in your hands to be the developer and QA this to find out what is going on.
Problems are like gifts, it's better to give than to receive
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
I recently reverted back to IE6 on my Media Center. I spent hours making my mp3 collection platform agnostic by embedding the album art into the file. Much to my horror MCE stopped showing the album art. Turns out for some crazy reason IE7 affects how album art is displayed - it shows as black if the eart is embedded. Doesn't seem to affect Media Player 11 or Vista.
Why the hell didn't you upgrade your development systems in 2006? Microsoft released the first develop versions of IE7 in Jan 2006, and released the "release" version in Oct 2006. We are nearly 2 years into the public existence of IE7. Integrating new technology, even if it's not "certified" in such a slow way is unacceptable. Don't say that it's for "security" as IE6 looks like swiss cheese. If you were truly concerned about security, you'd likely not run IE of any version let alone IE6.
Just seems silly to me.
Tibbon
tibbon.com
Load of bullshit. Individual ActiveX controls can have security issues. ActiveX in general can not. And considering the tools are available (Group Policy) to block all controls except whitelisted ones, your situation cannot happen with IT administrators who know what they're doing. Essentially, the first part of your "scenario" is completely made up and can't happen.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
So you're looking forward to Firefox violating the HTML spec by introducing an element which is not within the DTD? Are you insane? As a web developer, I hope Firefox drops this mad "video" element idea, since it's only meant to exist in HTML5, which no browser implements (since it's still not even a draft spec).
So you lambast Microsoft for violating the specs, and then praise Mozilla for doing the same? Double standard much? This'll go the way of Netscape - we all remember "" don't we?
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
So, I am a gold microsoft partner trying to renew my account on their partner site. However it keeps disallowing me to select a certain checkbox that I need to finish my renewal. Of course firefox is not supported so I give it a try with an old pc that still has i.e 6 on it that I use for testing. Surprise surprise, it works fine. If M$ can't even get all of their sites i.e. 7 compliant how do they expect us to?
Specific problem: Firefox chews ungodly amounts of memory doing nothing.
Steps to reproduce: Use Firefox. Internet Explorer eats 40MB of RAM to display 8 tabs, Firefox uses 120MB. Three times Internet Explorer's.
Seriously, it cannot get more detailed than that. From what I've seen, all you're doing is answering every person who says what the problem is with "that's a useless bug report" just so you can avoid admitting Firefox has an issue. It does, just some of us don't really care that much and don't bother jumping through hoops to get such responses as "Mozilla is not an HTML user agent" (and Firefox by extension, but that bug is ancient).
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
All I can say is that any time I try doing the same thing in Firefox and another browser, Firefox really does use less memory than the other browser. I cannot prove to you that I personally do not see a problem, and you obviously don't believe me. On the other hand, I do believe you see a problem. My suggestion is to discuss the problem in the MozillaZine forums so you can get a resolution. Perhaps you can point out a specific problem in Firefox or fix a problem that is happening on your computer. Surely if there's an obvious problem, you'll find many people who can see the same problem you do, and it will be trivial to reproduce. Then, you can report the bug and get it fixed. It'll be as simple as that if Firefox really does use three times IE's memory opening any particular eight tabs. Why not go there and point out the problem already?
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
I don't know, you'd have to ask Microsoft.. I've been running around the office uninstalling IE7 because it breaks ALL our MS Access 2000 databases (as in, they won't load when you click on the MDB files, they silently fail). Apparently it has to do with security settings and having to lower them because the extra crap rolled into IE7 doesn't allow our "unsigned" database applications to run unchallenged. So the choice is a) lower the security requirements in the Internet Settings control panel or b) ungrade to a newer version of MS Office.
The way I see it, it's a forced upgrade to generate more money and has nothing to do with IE6 or previous being this big security risk monster they are making it out to be.
IE6 should have died years ago, if it had we wouldn't be in the mess we're in(though we might also not have firefox), and now getting rid of it is going to be painful, but it needs to be done and the web isn't going to get better until it's gone.
10/31/06 UPDATE: HIGH PRIORITY INTERNET EXPLORER 7 WARNING!
If you are a current or future Business Tools for Schools (BTS) user, DO NOT download and install the upgrade to Internet Explorer Version 7.
It has been determined that this upgrade is not currently compatible with the BTS software that has been in use since July 2006.
This upgrade may be sent through the normal Windows Update process. If you have your computer set to automatically download recommended updates and install them you will need to make the following changes to your Windows Update.
Instructions for how to change your setting for Windows XP users are provided here. Please note: IE7 can not be installed on any Windows version before Windows XP.
If you have already upgraded to IE7, instructions on how to unistall IE7 and reinstall IE6 are found here.
Someone in MSFT management must have a sick sense of humor because they had to know that, even if slightly prematurely, millions of developers around the world are reacting to the very thought of a post-IE6 world with loud shouts of "Free at last... free at last... thank God almighty, free at last!"
step1: open firefox
step2: go to www.websitethatcausesproblem
step3: look at cpu/memory spike
thats how you report the steps. is it difficult for you?
If this does bother you, consider upgrading your head to Linux or even Firefox. It's much easier than raving about the same old stuff...
...your situation cannot happen with IT administrators who know what they're doing.... I think you just made my argument for me. Thanks.Oh, and ActiveX is, in general, a massive sucking security hole.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
I have just finished pointing out that all sites take memory. It's a gradual process whereby firefox eats more and more resources until it becomes unusable and has to be killed. There's obviously a leak somewhere, but I freely admit I am no programmer and wouldn't know where to begin looking for one.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
I've gotten zero viruses, ever, from Active X.
The only thing I've EVER gotten a virus from in the past ten years is Java, because some stupid app my brother needed had to use Sun's crappy JRE security hole package. And the amazing thing is, since Java is so easy to exploit, the majority of Java viruses are network-aware.
Active X is just fine. If there's a problem, it may lie between the chair and the keyboard.
you fuckers need to stop shunning ownership of the problem and create an easy way for end users to report complex problems, say an option in the help menu "the browser is using all my fuxking cpu and ram, report this to the devs" which sends the steps the user took to get to the current state
How would one go about seeing this problem? What should I do so I can finally see it? If I can see it, I can get someone to look into it and fix it. If I can't see a problem, then there's nothing I can do.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
I don't have to do anything. I'm a fellow Firefox user and I'm trying to help you with your problem by getting a bug fixed in Firefox or figuring out what's wrong on your computer. If you're going to just be argumentative with me, I'll just stop trying to help.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
You're fucking kidding me right? 25 tabs open.. using 600MB of ram.. that's 24MB per page.. exactly how can you consider that a bad thing? I think you're one of the few people who have actually managed to understate the amount of memory Firefox uses (being that most no-one knows how to measure memory usage).
How we know is more important than what we know.
You will need a SQL CAL and Windows Server 2003 CAL for each PC getting updates. That could equal a pile of cash even for small companies. If they do not read the fine print then the BSA has something to help you license correctly... :-)
WSUS and Crack are not free, both come a a cost after the initial use.
Don't be silly. Firefox 3 (or, rather, Gecko 1.9) is basically the available reference implementation for most of the HTML 5 proposals, and Opera 9.5 is the independent implementation of such. They're what will be dragging everyone else kicking and screaming to the party.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Maybe someone with more geek cred' than I has solved this, but the only reason I haven't upgraded to IE7 is that, when I do, *Outlook Express* stops working correctly: when I hold down CTRL and scroll the mouse wheel, it no longer changes the font size. I do this fairly often in the day, because of my bad eyes and wanting to minimize screen space. Anyone know how to fix this behaviour? (sorry, I know this isn't a tech support site :(
But this is ass-backwards. You don't fix things to make them work with bugs. You fix the bugs.
I've actually been doing an eval of WSUS 3 for the past week or so. Not anymore, GOODBYE. This just reminded me that I have NO interest in having to manually workaround Microsoft's selectively forced updates, among other things.
I did no such thing, and this will be my final response, as you're clearly one of those people who refuses to let the truth get in the way of a good flame. There's another user around here like that: Twitter.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
So I assume Wikipedia will be removing their DTD to comply with the HTML5 standard (and causing all versions of IE, Firefox, Opera, Safari, and others to drop into Quirks mode, screwing it up) or adding that weird "empty" DTD (and causing all versions of Firefox to drop into quirks mode, and all versions of Firefox, Opera, and Safari to jump into HTML4 standards compliant mode, also screwing it up)? This of course assumes that this change occurs before the HTML5 compliant Opera is released, and IE8 isn't HTML5 compliant.
I also don't see them dragging Microsoft, Apple, Opera or Google kicking and screaming at all (nice hyperbole though) since they're all on the group that's WRITING the spec.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
We'll be doing whatever reaches the readership effectively (IE brokenness and all). However, Firefox 3 being released will promptly mean a huge chunk of the readership will have something that supports the VIDEO tag, and a top 10 site with a bundle of Theora and Vorbis content will we hope be quite the use case.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Well, final it is then. That's fine and this will be short as well.
1) Who's Twitter? I don't care, really but that's a seriously disingenious way to attempt to libel by association - a good tactic when you're out of facts. Does that sound like someone you know?
2) The Active X framework sucks. Arguing otherwise with no facts is precisely what you're accussing me of. Being how pretty much everyone, including MS, have acknowledge that ActiveX is insecure, I believe the ball's in your court on this one. This does not mean that a specific individual ActiveX control is dangerous/insecure. That's like saying an individual driver is a bad driver because some drivers are bad drivers. But it is comparing the ActiveX framework to our road system in general, which is dangerous, otherwise 40+K people a year wouldn't die on them in the US alone. ActiveX is the equivalent of giving everyone 20 year old ill-maintained yugos with no seatbelts and forcing them to drive 100mph in the rain at night.
But, don't let the facts get in the way of your stated opinion, they haven't yet.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.