Re:In some ways it's inferior to IE5 and IE6...
on
IE7 Bugs and Reviews
·
· Score: 1
I guess I'm just saying that after use for years in two alternative browsers, you're the first person I've seen ever complain about that specific issue with regard to the combined button.
If it's only an issue for 0.0000001% of the browsing populace, it's a good default setting, as long as you can customize it and add 2 buttons instead if you want (like in Opera at least).
Basically it comes down to the licenses. Both Netscape and GMail have some privacy antanogistic EULAs. Plus, Netscape says they can install anything they want on your PC without telling you...
Re:In some ways it's inferior to IE5 and IE6...
on
IE7 Bugs and Reviews
·
· Score: 1
Well, I don't believe I've ever hit the reload instead of stop. And I use Opera, which has had this since I started using it 4 years ago. It's really not a big deal.
I mean, IDK, in practice, I just haven't had your "problem" happen. And I haven't heard any complaints from other Opera users re this either.
And, really - how often are you hitting stop on a page? Do you really do that several times a day? Or even once a day? Cause I don't...
Yeah, but users hate the UI like that. It's probably one of the biggest complaints with the default Opera UI, where the address bar and buttons are under the tab. There's about 10 million threads on the forum asking why they are doing it wrong, and how to move that bar above the Tabs.
Now, there will be the same for IE7.
Though I agree that the menu bar is in a weird place. I can see the menus act on the tab (but not all of them, many are browser wide...) so then you'd need two menu bars, and then people would probably break things. So, I'd go with consistency with established design and put the menus where they are on ever other windows program, at the top of the window.
The only thing that could be called truly new is the combined dropdown box for Back and Forward. Interesting idea, but it's certainly not "a clear step in the evolution of user-centric design."
How many people think this is actually useful, and why? I think it should be clearly a history dropdown, the screenshot makes me want to ask why the back button lacks a dropdown when the forward one has one.
Also, I'm not saying this is bad, but I don't really see the good in it either. For UI things, I'd suggest it's better to stay with something that is consistant and known by users than to switch to something that doesn't have a clear benefit.
What would be useful is some tree implementation, where if I go back, click on a new link, and then want to go back to where I was at the start, I can. I still need the history panel for that.
I do think the new IE has some interesting ideas though. The biggest is the way they implemented tabbed browsing. It's not innovative, and their UI isn't that different, but the minor change of making the new tab button such as it is, I believe, is good. It looks a bit jarring, but I think the idea is right. Consider grandma on her computer. I think she'd discover tabbed browsing on this IE7 beta quicker than she would on Firefox, Opera, and so on. It's more obvious, and it's more intuitive how to open a new tab, again in my opinion.
Really? To me it looks like I tried to open a tab there, but it failed to load properly, and possibly there was a UI or GDI glitch in drawing the tab's label...
I'm not really sure that the old New button, from 1993 or so isn't just as intuiative now, plus it has the benefits of following over a decade of training so consistency plays a large part. If clicking on the New button opens up a new tab, like in Opera or FF - what's confusing about that?
Or, how is that less clear than having what looks like a broken tab there? That tab has no label, so there's really no idea about what it does.
Ok, but the point I think is that UI changes should not require a restart of the browser. Restarts/reboots are lazy programming, and should be avoided as much as possible.
For instance, my browser of choice needs to work out some way to reload the config files without having to be restarted...
Re:I liked Internet Explorer 7 the first time...
on
IE7 Bugs and Reviews
·
· Score: 1
Won't this be bad for all the people who claim the interface of Opera et al is too complex?
Re:I liked Internet Explorer 7 the first time...
on
IE7 Bugs and Reviews
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Am I the only one worried about the privacy implications of the anti phishing feature? Instead of periodically updating a list on your PC, it sends every site you visit to Microsoft to be checked against a list at their end.
Isn't this basically spyware, and incidentally a reason many people won't use Opera with the Google ads?
Re:I liked Internet Explorer 7 the first time...
on
IE7 Bugs and Reviews
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I think MS's version of combining the dropdown history of back and forward is new. Whether that actually is more useable is open to debate. I'm really not too sure - because unless they change how the forward works (getting overwritten from being back and clicking a new link) which would then need trees or something, I don't see it really being useful. Different yes, more usable... not really.
The tree idea would be helpful to me, if there was any way to implement it without needing huge amounts of screen space...
Interesting is the combined reload/stop button. Been a point of contention in Opera for years. I like it, but lots of people figured it was "wrong" because IE didn't do it that way... Wonder what they will say now lol! [Maybe doing something different isn't bad, and you should give it a chance!]
The new tab criticism I've read I agree with, that blank tab looks to me like a bug, not a feature. It's certainly not obvious what it does or why it's there to me.
The menu bar really ought to be at the top - just for consistency on the platform. Generally the biggest arguments I get in with people re placement of things wrt tabs is about what is part of what. The menu is clearly browser chrome, and not specific to any tab (I hope, maybe the ribbon thingy from Office will carry over, in which case I could be wrong) so shouldn't be "inside" the tabs.
However, I still maintain that the address bar should be, as it's tab specific - though it's not a big deal if there's no MDI. So, I sort of think they've got it backwards. I hope they allow you to move the tab bars around in the final, as I'm rather used to tabs being at the bottom of the screen.
Yeah, but for some reason, on windows, the more software you install (and eventually uninstall), the shakier windows gets. Even in XP. IDK why, probably something to do with the registry.
For instance, even Win98 was rock solid with a total of 5 programs installed.
XP just upped the number it can handle to something more reasonable - like 50-60 or so. I don't know why the programs can't be separate, and the only limits are the amount of resources they use, but somehow they tend to cruft up windows. I think it also has to do with every fricken program wanting to run some update check or experiance enhancer all the time. Why does Acrobat need something running all the time? It's a document viewer for gods sake. Same with Office...
Seriously - I just don't get the benefits to the registry. It's hidden, arcane, and prone to failure.
It also makes you require installers and such, that are totally avoided on other OSs - and can be on Windows.
Programs that use config files are great - you can just copy the program folder to a new PC and run the exe. That's it, all your settings migrate etc...
The files are much more user editable - anyone who can use a text editor can easily change settings in an ini file, and it's easy to backup in case you really screw up. The registry requires a "special" program, and regedit isn't exactly the nicest editor I've ever used. It's somewhat more difficult to back up, and finding thigs seems like a real adventure for me. And storing things in the registry makes you also need transfer programs and uninstallers - as opposed to simply copy + paste or delete the folder.
Plenty of complex programs work fine with config files - see the proxomitron, Opera, and I believe FireFox. Why oh why can't we get rid of it already?
Well, some of this has to do with technology. 60's style reactors are likely disasters waiting to happen, and at least have a waste issue.
However, don't the French recycle some huge (over 90%) amount of their waste and use it again (and again?)? That seems like we could take all the waste we're currently storing somewhere, and re-use it, so it's fuel rather than waste now.
Also, don't the newer reactors like the pebble beds not have traditional waste issues? The actual fuel balls aren't dangerous...? And they cannot melt down? At least that's what I've read.
With things like that, a lot of my mysgivings are taken care of.
I have another question though - isn't it better to have one small (figuring we actually recycle the waste we currently have) "landfill" of waste, buried or whatever than spewing more raditation and waste into the air over huge areas? I would think so - given the information I have.
The problem with years for me is that The current Windwos os would be OS 2001. But it's not out of date - or at least there's nothing to upgrade to for the consumer (from MS). Year numbers only make sense for me if it's for software that is updated every year - like Tax software.
I also think that year numbering doesn't tell you as much about the software as [major release].[minor release].[bugfix] does. IMHO anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess I'm just saying that after use for years in two alternative browsers, you're the first person I've seen ever complain about that specific issue with regard to the combined button.
If it's only an issue for 0.0000001% of the browsing populace, it's a good default setting, as long as you can customize it and add 2 buttons instead if you want (like in Opera at least).
Isn't this basically ebay(with integrated paypal)?
Yeah, OK, but how many of those pages you're hitting stop on just finished loading in the split second you're clicking on the stop button?
Indeed. Much better.
Basically it comes down to the licenses. Both Netscape and GMail have some privacy antanogistic EULAs. Plus, Netscape says they can install anything they want on your PC without telling you...
Well, I don't believe I've ever hit the reload instead of stop. And I use Opera, which has had this since I started using it 4 years ago. It's really not a big deal.
I mean, IDK, in practice, I just haven't had your "problem" happen. And I haven't heard any complaints from other Opera users re this either.
And, really - how often are you hitting stop on a page? Do you really do that several times a day? Or even once a day? Cause I don't...
VMWare? VirtualPC? I know, it sucks, but I doubt you'll be able to continue testing the integrated IE alongside an older version. IE7 replaces IE6...
I'm pretty sure this was in Opera before Safari came out... Somewhere in v5 at least, which was 2001.
I've tried tabbed filemanagers in Directory Opus 8. Not so good in their implementation - actually horrible.
Now, if they made it work like the Tabs in Opera, I'd be in love!
I recall hearing that many things are different between IE7 on XPSP2 vs Vista.
Yeah, but then, should not the address bar also be under the tabs?
This is the first explanation regarding that choice that makes any sense.
Yeah, but users hate the UI like that. It's probably one of the biggest complaints with the default Opera UI, where the address bar and buttons are under the tab. There's about 10 million threads on the forum asking why they are doing it wrong, and how to move that bar above the Tabs.
Now, there will be the same for IE7.
Though I agree that the menu bar is in a weird place. I can see the menus act on the tab (but not all of them, many are browser wide...) so then you'd need two menu bars, and then people would probably break things. So, I'd go with consistency with established design and put the menus where they are on ever other windows program, at the top of the window.
The only thing that could be called truly new is the combined dropdown box for Back and Forward. Interesting idea, but it's certainly not "a clear step in the evolution of user-centric design."
How many people think this is actually useful, and why? I think it should be clearly a history dropdown, the screenshot makes me want to ask why the back button lacks a dropdown when the forward one has one.
Also, I'm not saying this is bad, but I don't really see the good in it either. For UI things, I'd suggest it's better to stay with something that is consistant and known by users than to switch to something that doesn't have a clear benefit.
What would be useful is some tree implementation, where if I go back, click on a new link, and then want to go back to where I was at the start, I can. I still need the history panel for that.
I do think the new IE has some interesting ideas though. The biggest is the way they implemented tabbed browsing. It's not innovative, and their UI isn't that different, but the minor change of making the new tab button such as it is, I believe, is good. It looks a bit jarring, but I think the idea is right. Consider grandma on her computer. I think she'd discover tabbed browsing on this IE7 beta quicker than she would on Firefox, Opera, and so on. It's more obvious, and it's more intuitive how to open a new tab, again in my opinion.
Really? To me it looks like I tried to open a tab there, but it failed to load properly, and possibly there was a UI or GDI glitch in drawing the tab's label...
I'm not really sure that the old New button, from 1993 or so isn't just as intuiative now, plus it has the benefits of following over a decade of training so consistency plays a large part. If clicking on the New button opens up a new tab, like in Opera or FF - what's confusing about that?
Or, how is that less clear than having what looks like a broken tab there? That tab has no label, so there's really no idea about what it does.
Ok, but the point I think is that UI changes should not require a restart of the browser. Restarts/reboots are lazy programming, and should be avoided as much as possible.
For instance, my browser of choice needs to work out some way to reload the config files without having to be restarted...
Won't this be bad for all the people who claim the interface of Opera et al is too complex?
Am I the only one worried about the privacy implications of the anti phishing feature? Instead of periodically updating a list on your PC, it sends every site you visit to Microsoft to be checked against a list at their end.
Isn't this basically spyware, and incidentally a reason many people won't use Opera with the Google ads?
Actually, I think MS's version of combining the dropdown history of back and forward is new. Whether that actually is more useable is open to debate. I'm really not too sure - because unless they change how the forward works (getting overwritten from being back and clicking a new link) which would then need trees or something, I don't see it really being useful. Different yes, more usable... not really.
...
The tree idea would be helpful to me, if there was any way to implement it without needing huge amounts of screen space
Interesting is the combined reload/stop button. Been a point of contention in Opera for years. I like it, but lots of people figured it was "wrong" because IE didn't do it that way... Wonder what they will say now lol! [Maybe doing something different isn't bad, and you should give it a chance!]
The new tab criticism I've read I agree with, that blank tab looks to me like a bug, not a feature. It's certainly not obvious what it does or why it's there to me.
The menu bar really ought to be at the top - just for consistency on the platform. Generally the biggest arguments I get in with people re placement of things wrt tabs is about what is part of what. The menu is clearly browser chrome, and not specific to any tab (I hope, maybe the ribbon thingy from Office will carry over, in which case I could be wrong) so shouldn't be "inside" the tabs.
However, I still maintain that the address bar should be, as it's tab specific - though it's not a big deal if there's no MDI. So, I sort of think they've got it backwards. I hope they allow you to move the tab bars around in the final, as I'm rather used to tabs being at the bottom of the screen.
Doesn't using AutoPatcher sort of make windows update superfluous?
Yeah, but for some reason, on windows, the more software you install (and eventually uninstall), the shakier windows gets. Even in XP. IDK why, probably something to do with the registry.
For instance, even Win98 was rock solid with a total of 5 programs installed.
XP just upped the number it can handle to something more reasonable - like 50-60 or so. I don't know why the programs can't be separate, and the only limits are the amount of resources they use, but somehow they tend to cruft up windows. I think it also has to do with every fricken program wanting to run some update check or experiance enhancer all the time. Why does Acrobat need something running all the time? It's a document viewer for gods sake. Same with Office...
Personally, I don't see why an OS has to come with a web browser. I think that OEM's or ISP's ought to provide the browser they want as a value add.
But that's just me, and I think many wouldn't want that kind of competition.
Seriously - I just don't get the benefits to the registry. It's hidden, arcane, and prone to failure.
It also makes you require installers and such, that are totally avoided on other OSs - and can be on Windows.
Programs that use config files are great - you can just copy the program folder to a new PC and run the exe. That's it, all your settings migrate etc...
The files are much more user editable - anyone who can use a text editor can easily change settings in an ini file, and it's easy to backup in case you really screw up. The registry requires a "special" program, and regedit isn't exactly the nicest editor I've ever used. It's somewhat more difficult to back up, and finding thigs seems like a real adventure for me. And storing things in the registry makes you also need transfer programs and uninstallers - as opposed to simply copy + paste or delete the folder.
Plenty of complex programs work fine with config files - see the proxomitron, Opera, and I believe FireFox. Why oh why can't we get rid of it already?
Well, some of this has to do with technology. 60's style reactors are likely disasters waiting to happen, and at least have a waste issue.
However, don't the French recycle some huge (over 90%) amount of their waste and use it again (and again?)? That seems like we could take all the waste we're currently storing somewhere, and re-use it, so it's fuel rather than waste now.
Also, don't the newer reactors like the pebble beds not have traditional waste issues? The actual fuel balls aren't dangerous...? And they cannot melt down? At least that's what I've read.
With things like that, a lot of my mysgivings are taken care of.
I have another question though - isn't it better to have one small (figuring we actually recycle the waste we currently have) "landfill" of waste, buried or whatever than spewing more raditation and waste into the air over huge areas? I would think so - given the information I have.
The problem with years for me is that The current Windwos os would be OS 2001. But it's not out of date - or at least there's nothing to upgrade to for the consumer (from MS). Year numbers only make sense for me if it's for software that is updated every year - like Tax software.
I also think that year numbering doesn't tell you as much about the software as [major release].[minor release].[bugfix] does. IMHO anyway.