If they haven't said they will support 2.1 in IE7, what does that tell you?
Until they DO agree to fully support standards, my original point stands regardless of any nitpicking over whether CSS2 is in fact partially flawed or not.
BTW, I just did a Google search on IE7 and CSS2.
Here's an interesting blog comment.
And here's Eric Meyer's thoughts back in March.
By the way, if you'd seriously compare the two, you'd see that Firefox renders pages much faster than IE, which is the primary reason I used to use Opera and now use Firefox. Which is far more important than how fast it loads.
My main irritation with Firefox is memory leaks, which supposedly will be fixed in the next major release.
Compared to IE, Firefox crashes much less often, renders 98% of Web pages correctly, and still works with my bank's security even though they say it's not supported.
The only time I need IE is handling some online multimedia situations where Active X controls are required, and the occasional secure site that doesn't work with Firefox, and the fairly rare site which is so heavily IE-specific that page menus and links don't work at all.
Another advantage to Firefox is its extensibility. If I don't like something about it, somebody else won't like it either and will do an extension to correct the problem. As it is, I only use four or five extensions, all of which are to correct irritations or provide features I used to have on Opera (such as the "z" page back key.)
98 was more secure NOT because it had MORE security but because it had LESS vulnerabilities because it was NOT listening to the Net with fifty different services at all times AND it had less code to have vulnerabilities IN.
"So long as you know the machine exists and where to find it"
Exactly - and how many more ways does 2000 and XP enable you to do that? There's a REASON we have more script kiddies now than during the 98 years.
Your bosses should read Marcus Ranum's rant about that, called "Stupid On Software."
His point: NO company ever sues a software company for software that fails. (Actually, of course, there are breach of contract suits all the time, but it's almost never COTS software, it's contracted software.)
Companies want "accountability", but they NEVER hold software companies like Microsoft "accountable." It's strictly a CYA maneuver to cover them with their bosses.
When Windows 98 wasn't connected to the Net, it was vulnerable only to diskette based and downloaded viruses. And it wasn't connected to the Net (with fifty services) unless you ran Outlook or IE.
2000 and XP are essentially listening to everything on the Net at all times. The end user can get infected in twelve minutes simply by installing 2000 or XP attached to a Net device.
Plus if you can simply count lines of code, 98 was FAR less vulnerable than 2000 and XP simply because there were far fewer vectors into the system.
I mentioned worms only because it was the most obvious difference between 98 and greater, and because it points to the main problem - too many insecure services listening to the Net - including IE.
As for the amount of connected computers, that is simply my point.
As for script kiddies, why the hell do you think they exist if 2000 and XP aren't so easy to compromise?
I stand by my statement. DOS was more secure than 98 because it didn't listen to ANYTHING unless you ran a commo program. And 98 was more secure than 2000 and XP because it listened to much less and had much less to infect than 2000 and XP.
And Visa (I left the t out for a reason) will be even WORSE than 2000 and XP. No doubt about it, no matter how many "security enhancements" MS puts in.
"And counting less software existing for a platform as a security win for the OS is just retarded."
No, it's not. DOS was vulnerable only disk-based viruses, since it NEVER listened to anything on the Net without explicitly running a commo program.
Windows 98 had less vulnerabilities than 2000 and XP - no matter how crappy the software was, unless you were actually on the Net (since this was before DSL), you only had downloaded and diskette-based viruses to worry about.
2000 and XP have TONS more vulnerabilities than 98 - that should be obvious to anyone who can simply compare lines of code.
I just mentioned worms because that was the most obvious problem, AND it points to the real problem - too many insecure services listening to the Net.
Like IE - which, as the topic under discussion - is one of them. Why do you think Microsoft is touting IE7's "security"? Because today's machines need it more than 98 did.
Uhm, where did Microsoft say it was going to support CSS2.1?
Also, I think the issue is that Microsoft doesn't want to support ANY of CSS2, let alone the flawed parts. It's not like Microsoft has a problem with only supporting PART of a standard, right?
Microsoft is not creating IE7 to make money on IE itself, that's for sure, as you correctly point out.
But Bill Gates does NOTHING that doesn't make him money.
Anything they do to maintain their browser stranglehold on the market has a measurable impact on the viability of their OS as a desktop OS and as a Web services OS - exactly where they're most worried at the moment about Linux and OSS in general creeping up on them.
Plus they gain some marketing bennies from LOOKING like they care about security and the end-user's problems with the current POS browser they support.
Plus as numerous others have pointed out, SOME corporations and end users WILL upgrade because of this. Even if it's not enough to offset the development cost of the IE7 enhancements, it reduces their cost by some amount while still giving them the above cited benefits.
If home users are willing to throw out PCs because of IE's spyware problems, as has been reported here, a lot of them will be willing to upgrade to XP (or get XP on their new shiny soon-to-be-infected again PCs) to get IE7's supposed additional security.
Of course, since Microsoft is buying Claria, the odds that IE7 will actually DO anything about spyware is virtually nil - unless the suggestion that Microsoft wants to dominate the spyware market is true - which it could be.
It's called the difference between paying for it and not paying for it.
When it's free and easy to upgrade, it's pointless to complain. When it costs money to upgrade, it's not pointless.
And plenty of corporations are still running servers based on Red Hat 6.2, if you didn't know, based on the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy (not that I agree with that, but they do.)
The rule at Microsoft is do NOTHING that doesn't put money in Bill's pocket.
That means security, reliability, stability, performance and everything but eye candy and incompatibility are ignored when designing ANY software at Microsoft. Only if a major customer (preferably several major customers) demands something is this rule even slightly abrogated.
IIRC Microsoft has specifically stated they will NOT support CSS2 - they claim it's a "flawed standard".
Typical.
And you can bet they'll add a number of "extensions" to maintain control of the Web market - no doubt about that at all. "Featuritis" is the terminal Microsoft disease and they WILL add incompatible "features" to the new browser that idiots will take advantage of, thus perpetuating the browser problem for another five years at least.
Let's see whether Windows 98 is more SECURE than XP.
With less services and less software, and with all patches to date applied, you bet it's more secure.
How many massive Net worm infections occurred during 98's reign compared to 2000 and XP?
Clever of you to select stability as the only issue, since obviously 98 was less stable as it was still layered on top of DOS. At the same time, Windows XP has a ton more services and crap in it, and while it doesn't crash as easily, it's still a fucking POS at handling locked up apps, as my rant the other day about the Serenity movie trailer proved.
While I like looking at beautiful hacker desktops like anybody else and maybe one of these days I'll do a little tweaking, and while I do have a wallpaper changer to show my babe pictures on my desktop, I can't comprehend why someone would spend hours tweaking a BROWSER to look good.
I install Firefox, get rid of all the toolbar buttons I don't use, get rid of any toolbars I don't use, and that's it. Everything else is stock (well, I do have four or five extensions that relieve certain irritations - no other extensions are needed).
Oh, well, to each his own. Maybe it's just that I don't have an artistic temperament.
"MS realized that the last IE as well as the last OS (prior to XP) had some major security problems."
When are they going to realize their current OS has some major security problems?
Oh, wait, that would be the reason for Long^H^H^H^HVisa (I left out the "t" for a reason, folks)?
"Making all software back compatible is only going to make them more susceptible to similar problems."
Wow, what a realization! Now if they could just realize that their entire fucking system development and marketing philosophy is what is making their current and all future systems susceptible to similar problems, THAT would impress me.
Until Bill Gates is hit by a truck (or shot by Melinda for his "They're only women" remark), I don't see it happening.
While I agree that this is specifically targeted to corporate users still running on 2000 - since IE is known to be the number one security problem, corporate techs will definitely be interested in a new browser - I doubt Firefox will get much if any benefit out of it.
I just don't think a new browser is worth the pain of upgrading an entire corporation from 2000 to XP, if it hasn't been done already by that corporation. So corporations on 2000 are not likely to be upgrading to XP based on IE7.
At the same time, I don't think any corporate management currently STILL on IE 5-6 will bother to upgrade to Firefox in any great numbers that will be noticeable. I'm sure some of their techs will recommend it, especially given that it's free, but there is the problem, for some corporations at least, about compatibility between their in-house browser-based apps (granted, not a huge number) and Firefox.
Bottom line: If it costs them money to upgrade either the OS OR the browser without a clear payback in better security or productivity, they won't do it. It's the same problem as with Linux - it's not that they WON'T benefit, it's that they don't PERCEIVE the benefit.
"Your popularity is based on who has you on their buddy list. There's a complicated algorithm at work here."
Complicated? Nope - zero minus zero equals zero in my case. No buddies = no buddie list = no popularity.
Wonder why?
Maybe it's because anybody who has to check a popularity rating Web site to determine his popularity is such a loser I don't want them for a buddy anyway.
Plus I don't take morons as "buddies" - which lets out approximately 98-99% of the human species.
I cut slack only for babes - but since they don't cut ME any slack, I don't have any of them either.
I recall many years ago here in the US somebody was charged with some computer crime and the cops wanted to access his system.
Problem was his system was so highly customized they couldn't figure out how to use it! (You just KNOW he wasn't running Windows! Or maybe he was - there are some alternative shells that would probably confuse any cop. Actually I think he was running Forth.)
So they went to court to get a court order to compel the suspect to tell them how to access his stuff.
Court said, "Nope, you're on your own, cops - protection against self-incrimination."
Obvious (and probably only) answer to all this is to hide your incriminating stuff offsite so if you're raided, they find nothing but your (hopefully legal) porn and Corrs videos collection and your hundred CDs full of Linux distros.
If I'm not mistaken, MUMPS is not obsolete. I believe it's still massively used in the medical industry.
See this:
MUMPS - Massachusetts General Hospital Utility Multi-Programming System. A database-oriented OS and the language that goes with it. Used originally for medical records. Only data type is the character string. Persistent associative arrays. Current versions for IBM RT and R6000, DSM (Digital Standard Mumps) for DEC, Datatree MUMPS for IBM PC, Unix MUMPS from PFCS . "MUMPS Language Standard", ANS X11.1-1977, ASN X11-1990. MUMPS User's Group, Box 208, Bedford MA 01730. list: MUMPS-L@UGA.BITNET.
Slashdot Mirror
If they haven't said they will support 2.1 in IE7, what does that tell you? Until they DO agree to fully support standards, my original point stands regardless of any nitpicking over whether CSS2 is in fact partially flawed or not. BTW, I just did a Google search on IE7 and CSS2. Here's an interesting blog comment. And here's Eric Meyer's thoughts back in March.
So stop loading your browser. Keep it open.
Oh, wait, IE crashes a lot.
Never mind.
By the way, if you'd seriously compare the two, you'd see that Firefox renders pages much faster than IE, which is the primary reason I used to use Opera and now use Firefox. Which is far more important than how fast it loads.
My main irritation with Firefox is memory leaks, which supposedly will be fixed in the next major release.
Compared to IE, Firefox crashes much less often, renders 98% of Web pages correctly, and still works with my bank's security even though they say it's not supported.
The only time I need IE is handling some online multimedia situations where Active X controls are required, and the occasional secure site that doesn't work with Firefox, and the fairly rare site which is so heavily IE-specific that page menus and links don't work at all.
Another advantage to Firefox is its extensibility. If I don't like something about it, somebody else won't like it either and will do an extension to correct the problem. As it is, I only use four or five extensions, all of which are to correct irritations or provide features I used to have on Opera (such as the "z" page back key.)
Which is why I said a lot of people are running 6.2.
Exactly my point, thank you for agreeing with me.
Have a nice day.
You're missing my point like everyone else.
98 was more secure NOT because it had MORE security but because it had LESS vulnerabilities because it was NOT listening to the Net with fifty different services at all times AND it had less code to have vulnerabilities IN.
"So long as you know the machine exists and where to find it"
Exactly - and how many more ways does 2000 and XP enable you to do that? There's a REASON we have more script kiddies now than during the 98 years.
Your bosses should read Marcus Ranum's rant about that, called "Stupid On Software."
His point: NO company ever sues a software company for software that fails. (Actually, of course, there are breach of contract suits all the time, but it's almost never COTS software, it's contracted software.)
Companies want "accountability", but they NEVER hold software companies like Microsoft "accountable." It's strictly a CYA maneuver to cover them with their bosses.
All you do is make my points.
When Windows 98 wasn't connected to the Net, it was vulnerable only to diskette based and downloaded viruses. And it wasn't connected to the Net (with fifty services) unless you ran Outlook or IE.
2000 and XP are essentially listening to everything on the Net at all times. The end user can get infected in twelve minutes simply by installing 2000 or XP attached to a Net device.
Plus if you can simply count lines of code, 98 was FAR less vulnerable than 2000 and XP simply because there were far fewer vectors into the system.
I mentioned worms only because it was the most obvious difference between 98 and greater, and because it points to the main problem - too many insecure services listening to the Net - including IE.
As for the amount of connected computers, that is simply my point.
As for script kiddies, why the hell do you think they exist if 2000 and XP aren't so easy to compromise?
I stand by my statement. DOS was more secure than 98 because it didn't listen to ANYTHING unless you ran a commo program. And 98 was more secure than 2000 and XP because it listened to much less and had much less to infect than 2000 and XP.
And Visa (I left the t out for a reason) will be even WORSE than 2000 and XP. No doubt about it, no matter how many "security enhancements" MS puts in.
"And counting less software existing for a platform as a security win for the OS is just retarded."
No, it's not. DOS was vulnerable only disk-based viruses, since it NEVER listened to anything on the Net without explicitly running a commo program.
Windows 98 had less vulnerabilities than 2000 and XP - no matter how crappy the software was, unless you were actually on the Net (since this was before DSL), you only had downloaded and diskette-based viruses to worry about.
2000 and XP have TONS more vulnerabilities than 98 - that should be obvious to anyone who can simply compare lines of code.
I just mentioned worms because that was the most obvious problem, AND it points to the real problem - too many insecure services listening to the Net.
Like IE - which, as the topic under discussion - is one of them. Why do you think Microsoft is touting IE7's "security"? Because today's machines need it more than 98 did.
You missed my point which is that fewer native services listening to the Net means fewer security holes.
I'm not saying 98 had good security - I said it had less vulnerabilities because it had less software to infect than 2000 and XP.
Uhm, where did Microsoft say it was going to support CSS2.1?
Also, I think the issue is that Microsoft doesn't want to support ANY of CSS2, let alone the flawed parts. It's not like Microsoft has a problem with only supporting PART of a standard, right?
No, I'm in the US.
"You should also realize that what you articulate is your opinion"
Reread the last section of my OP.
"or is Micro$oft doing something intensionally to keep it from running?"
Are you new to Windows?
"I don't particularly want to downgrade to XP to take advantage of IE7."
What's wrong with this picture?
"I love and I use Linux"
Bill, what did I just say in my last email?
You're spending way too much time astroturfing.
Even Melinda is complaining. She's afraid you're coming down with OCD like Howard Hughes.
Steve
Bill, the IE team says they need advice from you on how to integrate Gator with IE7.
Please call them on your cell.
By the way, I think you're spending way too much time astroturfing. I need help running this operation, you know.
Steve
Not quite.
Microsoft is not creating IE7 to make money on IE itself, that's for sure, as you correctly point out.
But Bill Gates does NOTHING that doesn't make him money.
Anything they do to maintain their browser stranglehold on the market has a measurable impact on the viability of their OS as a desktop OS and as a Web services OS - exactly where they're most worried at the moment about Linux and OSS in general creeping up on them.
Plus they gain some marketing bennies from LOOKING like they care about security and the end-user's problems with the current POS browser they support.
Plus as numerous others have pointed out, SOME corporations and end users WILL upgrade because of this. Even if it's not enough to offset the development cost of the IE7 enhancements, it reduces their cost by some amount while still giving them the above cited benefits.
If home users are willing to throw out PCs because of IE's spyware problems, as has been reported here, a lot of them will be willing to upgrade to XP (or get XP on their new shiny soon-to-be-infected again PCs) to get IE7's supposed additional security.
Of course, since Microsoft is buying Claria, the odds that IE7 will actually DO anything about spyware is virtually nil - unless the suggestion that Microsoft wants to dominate the spyware market is true - which it could be.
It's called the difference between paying for it and not paying for it.
When it's free and easy to upgrade, it's pointless to complain. When it costs money to upgrade, it's not pointless.
And plenty of corporations are still running servers based on Red Hat 6.2, if you didn't know, based on the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy (not that I agree with that, but they do.)
Exactly.
The rule at Microsoft is do NOTHING that doesn't put money in Bill's pocket.
That means security, reliability, stability, performance and everything but eye candy and incompatibility are ignored when designing ANY software at Microsoft. Only if a major customer (preferably several major customers) demands something is this rule even slightly abrogated.
IIRC Microsoft has specifically stated they will NOT support CSS2 - they claim it's a "flawed standard".
Typical.
And you can bet they'll add a number of "extensions" to maintain control of the Web market - no doubt about that at all. "Featuritis" is the terminal Microsoft disease and they WILL add incompatible "features" to the new browser that idiots will take advantage of, thus perpetuating the browser problem for another five years at least.
Let's see whether Windows 98 is more SECURE than XP.
With less services and less software, and with all patches to date applied, you bet it's more secure.
How many massive Net worm infections occurred during 98's reign compared to 2000 and XP?
Clever of you to select stability as the only issue, since obviously 98 was less stable as it was still layered on top of DOS. At the same time, Windows XP has a ton more services and crap in it, and while it doesn't crash as easily, it's still a fucking POS at handling locked up apps, as my rant the other day about the Serenity movie trailer proved.
You have way too much time on your hands.
While I like looking at beautiful hacker desktops like anybody else and maybe one of these days I'll do a little tweaking, and while I do have a wallpaper changer to show my babe pictures on my desktop, I can't comprehend why someone would spend hours tweaking a BROWSER to look good.
I install Firefox, get rid of all the toolbar buttons I don't use, get rid of any toolbars I don't use, and that's it. Everything else is stock (well, I do have four or five extensions that relieve certain irritations - no other extensions are needed).
Oh, well, to each his own. Maybe it's just that I don't have an artistic temperament.
Gee, you've got a great mom!
Can I meet her?
"MS realized that the last IE as well as the last OS (prior to XP) had some major security problems."
When are they going to realize their current OS has some major security problems?
Oh, wait, that would be the reason for Long^H^H^H^HVisa (I left out the "t" for a reason, folks)?
"Making all software back compatible is only going to make them more susceptible to similar problems."
Wow, what a realization! Now if they could just realize that their entire fucking system development and marketing philosophy is what is making their current and all future systems susceptible to similar problems, THAT would impress me.
Until Bill Gates is hit by a truck (or shot by Melinda for his "They're only women" remark), I don't see it happening.
This is an upgrade marketing ploy, NOTHING more.
While I agree that this is specifically targeted to corporate users still running on 2000 - since IE is known to be the number one security problem, corporate techs will definitely be interested in a new browser - I doubt Firefox will get much if any benefit out of it.
I just don't think a new browser is worth the pain of upgrading an entire corporation from 2000 to XP, if it hasn't been done already by that corporation. So corporations on 2000 are not likely to be upgrading to XP based on IE7.
At the same time, I don't think any corporate management currently STILL on IE 5-6 will bother to upgrade to Firefox in any great numbers that will be noticeable. I'm sure some of their techs will recommend it, especially given that it's free, but there is the problem, for some corporations at least, about compatibility between their in-house browser-based apps (granted, not a huge number) and Firefox.
Bottom line: If it costs them money to upgrade either the OS OR the browser without a clear payback in better security or productivity, they won't do it. It's the same problem as with Linux - it's not that they WON'T benefit, it's that they don't PERCEIVE the benefit.
"Your popularity is based on who has you on their buddy list. There's a complicated algorithm at work here."
Complicated? Nope - zero minus zero equals zero in my case. No buddies = no buddie list = no popularity.
Wonder why?
Maybe it's because anybody who has to check a popularity rating Web site to determine his popularity is such a loser I don't want them for a buddy anyway.
Plus I don't take morons as "buddies" - which lets out approximately 98-99% of the human species.
I cut slack only for babes - but since they don't cut ME any slack, I don't have any of them either.
I recall many years ago here in the US somebody was charged with some computer crime and the cops wanted to access his system.
Problem was his system was so highly customized they couldn't figure out how to use it! (You just KNOW he wasn't running Windows! Or maybe he was - there are some alternative shells that would probably confuse any cop. Actually I think he was running Forth.)
So they went to court to get a court order to compel the suspect to tell them how to access his stuff.
Court said, "Nope, you're on your own, cops - protection against self-incrimination."
Obvious (and probably only) answer to all this is to hide your incriminating stuff offsite so if you're raided, they find nothing but your (hopefully legal) porn and Corrs videos collection and your hundred CDs full of Linux distros.
If I'm not mistaken, MUMPS is not obsolete. I believe it's still massively used in the medical industry.
See this:
MUMPS - Massachusetts General Hospital Utility Multi-Programming System. A
database-oriented OS and the language that goes with it. Used originally for medical records. Only data type is the character string. Persistent associative arrays. Current versions for IBM RT and R6000, DSM (Digital Standard Mumps) for DEC, Datatree MUMPS for IBM PC, Unix MUMPS from PFCS . "MUMPS Language Standard", ANS X11.1-1977, ASN X11-1990.
MUMPS User's Group, Box 208, Bedford MA 01730.
list: MUMPS-L@UGA.BITNET.