×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Internet Explorer Not Dead Yet

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the doesn't-want-to-go-on-the-cart dept.

498

turnitover writes "The future's not all Firefox, Deer Park and Camino, insists Microsoft. At its Mix '06 conference in Las Vegas, reports Microsoft Watch, company execs insisted that there's a bright future for IE. They not only distributed a 'layout-complete' build of IE 7.0, but offered hints about what the new version of the browser geeks love to disdain (yes, it will include ActiveX) will include. Also shown: tools to test IE compatibility. But with what? Standards or IE 6?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

498 comments

Standards and Bueller, both missing. (2, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943970)


Also shown: tools to test IE compatibility. But with what? Standards or IE 6?

Right.

"See? It it renders these pages, full of our own standards, the W3c be damned. What's not to like?"

Wait, wait.. OK, never mind. I thought I was going to be whelmed by word of IE 7.0, not overwhelmed mind you, but only whelmed. But the feeling passed, I'm OK now. Really.

Honestly, I use Firefox for almost everything simply because I prefer the way it behaves, meaning, it behaves.

Mar. 17, 2006, 50th anniversary of Fred Allen's [wikipedia.org] passing [pjstar.com]. "As the chinese teapot said to the auctioneer's hammer, I'm going-going-gone!"

Re:Standards and Bueller, both missing. (2, Interesting)

uomolinux (838417) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944017)

Not dead yet but not verry popular in my business. We only use it for some MS update, we are curently replacing Office for OpenOffice.org, but wait... Google is preparing something too ;-)

Re:Standards and Bueller, both missing. (2, Interesting)

lowrydr310 (830514) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944255)

Unfortunately my workplace requires IE - several company sites that I need to regularly access don't work in anything but IE. I installed Firefox and in addition to not being able to view those few sites, the IT department hunted me down and made me get rid of it because it's "unauthorized software" (it's funny when the unauthorized browser is more secure than the authorized browser, eh?).

Re:Standards and Bueller, both missing. (2, Funny)

TERdON (862570) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944070)

Also shown: tools to test IE compatibility. But with what? Standards or IE 6?

Most probably neither, if we're to judge by history...

Re:Standards and Bueller, both missing. (1)

solarbob (959948) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944131)

Firefox IMHO is a much better user expierence with tabs (once you get use to the idea) and having a little search box. Ignroing the power features that users like (greasemoney,scripts etc) it just works. However for most Windows customers when they switch on the PC for the first time there is thebig blue E and off they go surfing. It also "just works" so why should they look for something extra? Most people don't know/realise the holes in IE and just click randomly. Until there is a fundemental change is user education its going to be a very slow battle to get domiance (and the "standards" it implies) from IE

Gomer Pyle Alert! (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944182)

Most people don't know/realise the holes in IE and just click randomly. Until there is a fundemental change is user education its going to be a very slow battle to get domiance (and the "standards" it implies) from IE

To employ an old quote: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

And there are people out there who never fix the the bugs, never patch, never anything, and they get pwn3d and join the hordes of bots.

As Gomer would say, "Fer shame, fer shame, fer shame!"

Re:Standards and Bueller, both missing. (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944266)

Not really. Firefox has gained quite a decent market share considering that it doesn't come with Windows. My old man and little sister both use it, my dad with no prompting from me whatsoever (and he's no more a geek than I am a quantum physicist) and my little sister from being given mild scare stories about trojans stealing her bank details (although she still uses IE for her MSN home page).
Firefox gets regular positive mentions in the PC mags over here in the UK (and is included on the cover CDs/DVDs), and given the advantages to using it and the only superficial differences between the way it works and the way IE works a lot of people are switching.
There won't be any dominance by any one browser any more as there has been over the last decade unless MS do something very evilly clever (which to be fair is always a possibility).
FF has too much momentum now to be derailed unless IE 7 offers something that is incredibly useful and can not be easily emulated by the competition.

Re:Standards and Bueller, both missing. (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944298)

I've been using firefox for quite a while. I still don't use the search box. I just go to the address bar and type in google.ca, then search that way. I know the other way is much faster, but I'm just so used to the old way, that I haven't bothered to switch. Not to mention that most times when I search, I'm opening a new tab anyway. I love the tab feature because it offers such an advantage over the old system. Every time I watch a co-worker try to figure out which of the IE windows on their taskbar is the one they're looking for (especially bad if they are grouped) I thank the almighty dinosaur for Tabs.

Re:Standards and Bueller, both missing. (3, Interesting)

bmalia (583394) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944311)

Firefox IMHO is a much better user expierence with tabs (once you get use to the idea) and having a little search box.

I just wanted to comment on tabs and the little search box. I was helping a not-so-computer-literate friend out the other day. When I suggested he google something, he clicked on the icon to open up a new browser. I then suggested he close that new window and open a new tab. Which I had to teach him how. Then he started to goto google.com, and I stopped him suggesting he type it in the search box. Which he did, but instead of pressing enter to submit it, he pressed the go button just to the left of it. That go button only works for the URL, not for the search. So i had him put the cursor back in the search box and press enter.

A simple task turned into a crash course on web surfing. Is he the only idiot out there or are there thousands of other firefox users out there not using firefox's ease of browsing features simply because they don't know how?

vista only? (-1, Flamebait)

kw (79895) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943982)

It's certainly dead if it's a Vista-exclusive

Re:vista only? (2, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944148)

It's certainly dead if it's a Vista-exclusive

There's two ways to get Vista into the hands of schucks:

  • Have sommat supported by some tool (like IE7) which is so necessary, the user has no choice but the upgrade*.
  • Cut a deal with PC makers so ONLY Vista on installed on new PCs, further fragmenting and forking** the market.

Vista will be out there, but keep in mind, there's a lot of users still dorking along on Win 95, Win 98, ME, NT, 2000, etc. and they're in no hurry to switch. Why pay an a Technology Tax every few years?

* The term Upgrade is used figuratively.
** Also f__king the market.

Re:vista only? (4, Insightful)

lowrydr310 (830514) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944316)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There's no reason to upgrade beyond Windows 2000. Once it's required (as in certain things won't run unless I have Vista or my hardware dies and the only new hardware needs Vista) then it'll be a full transition to Linux.

My wife is already sold on a MacBook (she's waiting for the design to mature a little, we've been burned before buying the first generation of a product). I'm happily running Windows 2000 and Ubuntu and they suit my needs just fine. In fact Windows 2000 suits all my needs right now, however I am trying to get used to Ubuntu just for fun.

ACID 2.0 Test (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14943985)

When Microsoft IE can pass the ACID 2.0 Test come back to me.

Sincerely,

Firefox Fan

Re:ACID 2.0 Test (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14944060)

I assume you know this, but just in case, and for the benifit of passerbys, Firefox does NOT pass the acid 2 test.

Re:ACID 2.0 Test (5, Funny)

ELProphet (909179) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944063)

Neglecting Firefox's inability to pass Acid 2.0. this [opera.com] might be better for you.

Re:ACID 2.0 Test (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14944138)

When Opera can handle more than a quarter of the pages on the internet correctly come back to me.

Sincerely,

Another Firefox Fan

Re:ACID 2.0 Test (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14944064)

um, Firefox doesn't pass ACID2 either

Re:ACID 2.0 Test (3, Funny)

dreemernj (859414) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944097)

When Firefox can pass the Acid 2.0 Test, come back to me.

Sincerely,

Opera 9tp Fan

(disclaimer, not bashing FF, just found the previous comment to be an offer too tempting to turn down)

Re:ACID 2.0 Test (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944127)

The GP poster never claimed Firefox passes the ACID2 test. But at least they're working on it, and the current rendering is 100 times better than IE7's blood-stained test.

Re:ACID 2.0 Test (5, Interesting)

kimvette (919543) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944166)

While I am also a Firefox fan and use it despite Konqueror's being very nice and passing the Acid2 test, it should be pointed out that Firefox does NOT pass the Acid2 test. At least, Firefox/1.5.0.1 does not. The dev tree might, but who counts that? One may as well claim that Looking Glass [sun.com] is the best operating environment ever - but since it's vaporware/unreleased it would be a false statement.

Sure, Firefox breaks less than IE does when loading the Acid2 test, however by a strict measurement, only one (two) browsers to date pass Acid2:

KHTML (Safari/Konqueror)

If you want to count dev trees/beta releases, then you've got:

Opera
Firefox

Also, I think it's great that the Opera folks are almost mocking Microsoft, and challenging them to pass Acid2. Aside from KHTML which is there, and MSIE which TOTALLY pukes on it, Every other browser is almost rendering Acid2 to be recognizable as a smiley face. At least everyone else is attempting to handle proper CSS and bad CSS correctly, e.g, render compliant CSS, and downgrade gracefully on broken CSS.

What MSIE renders could just as well be accomplished by splashing paint on a sheet of canvas. With the way Microsoft is handling things, I wonder why they don't just ignore CSS altogether and turn their browser into a random pixel renderer?

Get with the program, Microsoft. You have the greatest market share so it is in your best interest for maintaining your share to act responsibly. I hope the mass reaction to MSIE 7.0 is for major sites to either block the browser, or to use CSS which causes MSIE to totally break, and for those sites to recommend all browsers which are not MSIE as alternatives.

Microsoft has held the web back long enough with their refusal to implement proper PNG rendering - their holding back the web has to stop now.

Re:ACID 2.0 Test (2, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944327)

I think I heard that safari passed the ACID 2.0 test, and then I hear tons of people complaining that Safari doesn't render things properly. The ACID 2.0 test is not some wonderful test that verifies your browser will render all HTML/CSS content perfectly. You could program your browser specifically to pass the test, and it still may not render everything properly. Reminds me of video card manufacturers tweaking their drivers to get higher frame rates on Quake 3.

Standards? (0, Flamebait)

Quasar1999 (520073) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943986)

I remember when the standards were defined by Netscape and IE, basically any new feature one implemented, the other copied, and voila, a standard... Whatever happend to that type of development? It benefited everyone. Now we have a bunch of lame ass intellects defining standards but not actually implementing them, resulting in any app that does follow these new standard features to have massive memory leaks, and hacked code to get it to work...

I want the old 'standards' war back.

Re:Standards? (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944051)

"I remember when the standards were defined by Netscape and IE, basically any new feature one implemented, the other copied, and voila, a standard... Whatever happend to that type of development? It benefited everyone."

I take it you're a bit too young to remember when IE invented the "strong" tag to break the "b" tag. (If you ever tried to create "cross-browser" Javascript, especially around 2000, you'd also feel differently.)

Re:Standards? (2, Insightful)

Pantero Blanco (792776) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944141)

I don't think the parent post is flamebait, though I think he's missing something.

What you're talking about is what takes place between F/OSS projects working on the same thing; each takes ideas from the others while coming up with its own ideas, which may be copied.

Sometimes it happens in battles between commercial products, but often each starts implementing things differently for the sole purpose of breaking compatibility with the other. The result is documents, pages, et cetera that will only work with one company's product. There's no progress there.

translation (4, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943988)

Translation: We're working on ways of tying this thing even further into our operating system than before.

Re:translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14944053)

Someone also heard the words "we will cut off their air supply."

Oh boy! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14943990)

I can't WAIT to watch the objective analysis that this thread will surely contain.

Re:Oh boy! (2, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944163)

I can't WAIT to watch the objective analysis that this thread will surely contain.

Analysis? What is there to analyze? MS issued bunch of PR about Internet Explorer that fails to address the most egregious failings of the product. It has control of the market with this pile of crap simply because they bundled it with their monopoly OS. The consumers are suffering, but that is old news and this does nothing to make most of us believe it will change.

IE may not be dead yet (5, Funny)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 8 years ago | (#14943998)

But it's certainly beginning to smell like it is!

Re:IE may not be dead yet (1)

AltGrendel (175092) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944105)

Or...

With proper technology, even Frankenstein's monster could be resurrected.
Doesn't mean it's a good idea though.

It's just resting! (5, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944201)

> But it's certainly beginning to smell like it is!

Dont' worry, it'll be stone dead in a minute.
$ rm -rf /source/vista/ie7/*

But seriously...

User: I wish to make a complaint!
Ballmer: (hurriedly) Sorry, we're about to ship Vista.
User: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this web browser, what came bundled not five years ago from this very operating system.
Ballmer: Oh yes, IE, ah, version 6. What's, ah... W-what's wrong with it?
User: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. It's dead, that's what's wrong with it.
Ballmer: No, no, It's ah... it's undergoing a security upgrade.
User: Look, matey, I know a dead browser when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Ballmer: No no, i-it's not dead, it's... getting its user interface upgraded!
User: User interface?
Ballmer: Y-yeah, the UI. Upgradin'. Remarkable browser, IE, isn't it, eh? Beautiful layouts!
User: The layout-complete build don't enter into it. It's stone dead!
Ballmer: Nononono, no, no! 'E's bein' upgraded!
User: All right then, if he's bein' upgraded, I'll run 'im!
(starts typing)
IEXPLORE.EXE! C:\MYDOCU~1\HELLO.JPG
Looky looky looky! Happily rendering the Goatse Guy! Hey, IE, I've got lots of lovely RAM for you if you're running, Mr. Internet Explorer!)
(pounds keyboard)
Ballmer: There, the page refreshed!
User: No, he didn't, that was you clicking reload!
Ballmer: I never!!
User: Yes, you did!
Ballmer: I never, never....
(pounding Ctrl-Alt-Del on the keyboard again)
User: HELLO, WORLD! HELLO TASK MANAGER! PLEASE WAKE UP!
Now that's what I call a dead browser.
Ballmer: No, no.... No, it's just running a signed ActiveX Control in the background.
User: A ACTIVEX CONTROL!?!?
Ballmer: Yeah! You invoked an ActiveX control, just as it was wakin' up! Believe me, IE runs those easily, major!
User: Look my lad, I've had just about enough of this. That browser is definitely deceased, and when I booted its PC up after buyin' it not half an hour ago, you assured me that the PC's total lack of computational power was due to it being tired and shagged out after a prolonged virus scan.
Ballmer: Well, he's... it's, ah... probably needin' activation and authorization with Windows Genuine Advantage.
User: WINDOWS Genuine ADVANTAGE?!? What kind of talk is that? Look, why did the OS crash flat on its back the moment I plugged it into the router?
Ballmer: The Norwegian Bluescreen prefers kippin' on its back! Remarkable UI, though, isn't it, guv, eh? Lovely layout-complete screenshots!
User: (coldly) Look, I took the liberty of examining that browser cache when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that the PC had anything to run on its hard drive in the first place was that it had been bundled in there along with the spyware and the DRM.
Ballmer: Well, of course it has DRM there! If I hadn't bundled that browser and nailed everything down with DRM, all the content would have nuzzled up to those wires at the back, bent 'em apart with its little bits, and VOOM!
User: "VOOM?" Look matey, this browser wouldn't "voom" if you put four thousand kilobytes of W3C standards through it! It's bleedin' demised!
Ballmer: It's not! I-It's just authenticating!
User: It's not authenticatin,' it's passed on! This browser is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! This is a late software release! It's a stiff! Bereft of RAM, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed it to the system with DRM and your monopoly it'd be pushing up the daisies! Its spawned processes are of interest only to historians! It's hopped the twig! It's shuffled off this mortal coil! It's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible! This.... is an INACTIVE X!
Ballmer: Well, I'd better upgrade it, then.

(I'll stop it now. It's silly.)

Antigravity drive the Microsoft way... (0, Troll)

gd23ka (324741) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944000)

"company execs insisted that there's a bright future for IE." just insist that gravity does not exist.

Re:Antigravity drive the Microsoft way... (1)

dusik (239139) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944080)

General relativity explains that gravity is an illusion of sorts... and maybe so is the bright future of IE. Let's wait and see.

(Although, it's a fact that IE is technically behind Firefox and Opera, it will likely continue to be popular because it's Microsoft, which is an entirely non-technical reason.)

In other news.. (5, Insightful)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944021)

Honda claims next year's Hondas will be the best cars ever, Magnavox claims to produce the greatest ever stereo system, and Goya state that their upcoming batch of red kidney beans are going to be the absolute mind-blowingly best batch of red kidney beans ever set upon by human sensory organs.

Why is it news when a company advertises its own products?

Re:In other news.. (1)

ThinkWeak (958195) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944106)

It's not news when a company advertises its own products. It is also nothing new when slashdot throws MS a free advertisement for one of their products.

Re:In other news.. (1)

dusik (239139) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944112)

>> "Why is it news when a company advertises its own products?"

Good point.

Could it be because so many people (sheep) take Microsoft's word as coming from a reputable source, and therefore we would like to take the time to criticise it as such, rather than a joke, in an attempt to counterbalance the discrepancy?

In other news..The "Unsinkable" RMS Slashtanic. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14944305)

"Could it be because so many people (sheep) take Microsoft's word as coming from a reputable source, and therefore we would like to take the time to criticise it as such, rather than a joke, in an attempt to counterbalance the discrepancy?"

You'd have a point if someone other than geeks read this site. Hell, we can't even hold onto the geeks, let alone everyone else. Just look at how many long time monikers you no longer see.

Good thing too! (5, Funny)

clevershark (130296) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944026)

The decision was cheered as "guaranteed work for the next decade" by computer security experts worldwide.

Microsoft hosting lab about this (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14944031)

I have not heard it reported anywhere, but note that Microsoft will be hosting an "IE7 Compat Lab" at Mix '06, where developers can test their applications for compatibility with the latest IE test builds. As Microsoft itself has acknowledged, there could be app-compatibility hiccups with IE 7.0.

I have read that Microsoft acknowleding on the Mix '06 Web site, "reduced need to hack around quirks in older browsers, however, means that existing pages written specifically for older browsers may render differently in IE7. In addition, IE7 includes a number of new security features which may have impact on binary extensions such as toolbars, browser helper objects, and ActiveX controls."

Re:Microsoft hosting lab about this (1)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944325)

The sad thing is that there are two rendering modes for Internet Explorer, "quirks", where it intentionally gets things wrong regarding the W3C specifications, and "strict", where it unintentionally gets things wrong regarding the W3C specifications.

Decent web developers make sure they trigger strict mode, because, although it's still atrociously bad, it's still a bit more compliant than quirks mode.

However Internet Explorer 7's updates that break compatibility do so only for one of the modes. Guess which one? Yep, Microsoft are breaking compatibility for the web developers who try and follow the W3C specifications as closely as possible, but are retaining compatibility for all the developers who ignore the specs and follow quirks mode.

Doctype switching is an awful hack that they could have avoided (want quirks? Send an X-Microsoft-Quirks header), but they chose not to, and as a result have made life difficult for web developers who are doing their best to hack around Internet Explorer's deficiencies.

Have you actually (1)

fatboysmith (673609) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944033)

tried IE7 Beta? It doesn't suck from an interface standpoint. Security issues aside, there are a few features I'd like to see in Firefox that are in IE7. The RSS intergration is well done. Customization still needs tweaking though.

Well, Not too "Bright", but... (4, Insightful)

Pantero Blanco (792776) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944040)

I don't know about a bright future, but it's not going away any time soon. I'm not sure how massive a screw-up it would take for IE to lose its largest customer base - the people who can't be bothered to look for anything else or don't know anything else exists.

As long as the Gecko crowd and Opera manage to hold on to enough marketshare to force web developers to use REAL standards instead of Microsoft's so that my browser of choice works, I'll be content.

Well, Not too "Bright", but...Be like me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14944175)

"I don't know about a bright future, but it's not going away any time soon. I'm not sure how massive a screw-up it would take for IE to lose its largest customer base - the people who can't be bothered to look for anything else or don't know anything else exists."

Or the people who have a large investment in ActiveX, and other IE technologies. You guys always assume that people are either lazy, or uneducated just because they don't use what you think they should use.* How about providing equalvilents instead of acting smug?

*How very 1984'ish.

Re:Well, Not too "Bright", but...Be like me. (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944223)

Well, people are lazy or uneducated to have used activex in the first place... There are alternatives, such as flash and java, which are cross platform and far more secure.

Re:Well, Not too "Bright", but...Be like me. (2, Insightful)

pilkul (667659) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944238)

Or the people who have a large investment in ActiveX, and other IE technologies.

Er, certainly a few companies have inhouse ActiveX applications, and that's fine. I imagine your company is among them, or you wouldn't be making this post. But get a little perspective: those people represent a tiny fraction of the market.

*How very 1984'ish.

Uh huh, right. The grandparent "Pantero Blanco" controls a vast world-controlling network of agents, and he will soon deploy black helicopters to your house for daring to dispute his assessment of the best web browser.

Re:Well, Not too "Bright", but...Be like me. (1)

Pantero Blanco (792776) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944258)

The "people who have a large investment in ActiveX" don't take up 75% of IE's userbase. The people who don't have an inclination to look for or don't know about anything else do. I never called them "lazy" or "uneducated".

Saying I "want everyone to be like me" doesn't even make sense given the original post. Did you get to the second paragraph before you knee-jerked?

What's bright.... (2, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944055)

If "bright future" means technical excellence, then of course this is obvious bullshit. But if it means 90% of the user base, then I'm afraid it's a foregone conclusion.

The thing is when you're a company like Microsoft and you've got this huge, unstoppable cash flow: you never really have to pay for your mistakes. Which makes it hard for you to stop making them. I hate to be the one to point this out, but Google has the same problem!

Extensions (2, Insightful)

quokkapox (847798) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944065)

IE is kind of boring nowadays because it isn't extensible. At least, not voluntarily.

I just can't imagine installing IE7 on my machine except if I REALLY have to to verify that my websites load and operate with it. And that would be really sad.

Firefox has some work to do too... (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944068)

The Firefox browser has got some work to be done on it too.

In my view, the guys at Mozilla should grade the extensions in relation to how stable or otherwise they leave the base Firefox installation. The FoxyTunes extension for example, while being touted as completely compatible with Firefox 1.5.0.x, still makes the tab browsing interface completely inconsistent.

I also feel that at this point in time, the Firefox interface looks ancient. It's time for a revamp. How about that guys?

Re:Firefox has some work to do too... (2, Interesting)

Al Dimond (792444) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944331)

Firefox interface looking ancient? What would you replace it with, FisherPrice-looking crap? Ugly blue gradients like Office and now OO.o? Apple-style glass effects? Why is it that every time Microsoft or Apple comes out with an ugly new look people think sensible designs are outdated? Count me out! I'd rather have FF look like Motif than Office or the current Netscape version!

NOT DEAD YET? (5, Insightful)

peterpressure (940132) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944071)

Isn't IE still 90% of the market share? where did this subject line come from?

Sure I wish it was dead just like everyone else, but last I checked my grandmother wasn't going to download firefox so she can receive RSS feeds and use tabbed browsing...

what a bias misleading subject...

i thought /. was completely non biased and objective

muahahahahahahaha

Re:NOT DEAD YET? (4, Funny)

Ravatar (891374) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944284)

i thought /. was completely non biased and objective

You must be new here, welcome.

Dead (2, Interesting)

certel (849946) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944093)

I still find that IE is faster than FireFox and hope that they can continue to work out the bugs... Wow, am I really saying that? I've tried FireFox and although I am a fan of the browser, I still find that I use IE more.

Re:Dead (1)

pl1ght (836951) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944185)

I have to agree on this as well. I have been using IE7 beta and am finding it is quite well done so far. Also doesnt suffer from the memory leak problems that "dont" exist in firefox.

Re:Dead (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14944285)

It's easy to claim a browser "faster" when it's preloaded with the OS.

IE's Dead (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14944104)

If you need to announce via a headline that IE isn't dead, then it's dead. Sorry.

Bright? (1)

AWhiteFlame (928642) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944109)

As long as its shipped with Windows, and Windows is the dominant force, yeah, Internet Explorer is not going to die. "Bright Future" may be extensive, but its definitely still going to be the powerhouse. The only way Internet Explorer can be dealt with is if more computers are shipped by default with a different browser. I know plenty of people who don't want to switch from IE because its just "what they've used" and it just "works" for them.

IE7 Dynamic Security Protection (1)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944119)

IE7 [microsoft.com] shows warning messages for 'Reported Phishing Websites.'

Maybe this will finally catch the 'big one that got away.'

Terrible title (1)

snitmo (901312) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944126)

"Internet Explorer Not Dead Yet" ... Thanks for letting me know. Of course it's not dead. IE ships with all Windows, so it will be installed on 90% (or whatever percentage Windows has) of the desktops. There are some web pages that don't work well with other browsers (e.g. the ones at microsoft.com :) ), so a regular user wouldn't uninstall IE even if he or she uses FireFox for most purposes. Whether you like it or not (and I don't), IE is here to stay.

But Firefox could have a great 2007 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14944128)

The fact that PS3 and the $100 laptop, both of which run Linux, will each ship in quantity millions in 2007 will not help IE one bit.

Still trying to figure out the statement (2, Interesting)

NorbrookC (674063) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944134)

FTA "reduced need to hack around quirks in older browsers, however, means that existing pages written specifically for older browsers may render differently in IE7. In addition, IE7 includes a number of new security features which may have impact on binary extensions such as toolbars, browser helper objects, and ActiveX controls."

I'm still scratching my head over this. From what I think this says, it means that the pages that relied on the MS specific stuff for IE5x and 6 won't look the same when viewed with IE7. Which doesn't say anything about following standards, or comparing it to how the page looks using FireFox and Opera. And, the new "security measures" will screw up all the toolbars, objects, and ActiveX that they've encouraged web developers to use. Gee, wasn't this why I switched to FireFox in the first place?

As long as they have an iron grip on the desktop OS, and insist on intertwining it into their OS, of course it has a "bright future." It doesn't mean that it's going to be any more secure (although hope reigns eternal), or be compliant with standards. I'm still trying to work out what the hell they meant.

Not Dead Yet but Still Being Flogged (4, Insightful)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944136)

Sure IE isn't dead yet but by not working with standards, by being overly invasive, by being integrated into the OS and several other mistakes that they REFUSE to correct, they are doing their best to kill it. It's like they are doing there best to ignore the public outcry while cramming something else down there throats.

Sure Joe Average user doesn't care about these things (at least not directly) but he does care about the indirect problems that these things incur. All he knows is that with Firefox, he doesn't get POPUPS, it lets him modify it to what he wants it to look and act like and it's simple easy and fun to use. Most users completely forget about IE until another applications forces them to open it and asks if they want it to be their default browser.

Now even universities, schools and businesses are installing Firefox and doing their best to remove all pointers to IE due to security risks. And once the end user becomes familiar with the brwser at work or school, they will be more likely to download it and install it at home.

There is a reason why some sites show Firefox usage as high as 30%; hell even internally at Microsoft, 8-11% of people use a Mozilla based browser (based on stats from exclusive third party vendors to Microsoft).

In this case, Microsoft is their own worst enemy and needs to modify their business strategy or else continue to lose market share in the browser.

Re:Not Dead Yet but Still Being Flogged (2, Insightful)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944246)

All he knows is that with Firefox, he doesn't get POPUPS, it lets him modify it to what he wants it to look and act like and it's simple easy and fun to use. Most users completely forget about IE until another applications forces them to open it and asks if they want it to be their default browser.

Um, IE has had a popup blocker for years now, and the average user doesn't even know you can plug things in.

There is only one reason Firefox has gained marketshare: IE's vulnerability to spyware. If they fix that, then no one will have any incentive to move to Firefox. Hell, I use Firefox for this reason, and if IE finally becomes fixed (and has tabbed, which I've grown to like), I probably won't bother with Firefox anymore. Why should I if IE works well enough?

People need a really good reason to use something other than what works well enough. Firefox managed to gain a foothold when IE wasn't working well enough, but I think that probably won't last.

Re:Not Dead Yet but Still Being Flogged (1)

briancnorton (586947) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944321)

There is a reason why some sites show Firefox usage as high as 30%

Yep, it's called wishful thinking, or more accurately, Lies.

All he knows is that with Firefox, he doesn't get POPUPS, it lets him modify it to what he wants it to look and act like and it's simple easy and fun to use.

You're right, Joe average doesn't care, but IE has a popup blocker, and lets him modify just as easily as firefox. (drag and drop) It's no simpler or easier to use, and the supposed security advantage over IE looks like more hype than reality.

The most interesting part though is when you call it "fun." How is it "fun?" Why should a browser be "fun." A browser is about accessing content, not entertaining me.

IE, monty python style (2, Funny)

Kn1nJa (878764) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944161)

IE: I'm not dead yet Firefox: Well you will be soon enough IE: I feel happy, I feel.... *WHACK* Firefox: Thank you very much, see you thursday

For some of us, IE has been dead since 1997... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14944204)

... with the release of IE 4.00 (read: NOT 4.01.) It was the absolute worst excuse for a browser ever conceived. Once installed, it rendered any other browser unusable on both Windows 95 and NT. You could double-click Netscape (the most popular browser at the time) all day and night, but it would no longer function.

And you didn't dare attempt to uninstall IE 4.0. Doing so would render EVERYTHING on the PC unusable. You might as well reformat.

I vowed to this date to never, ever install IE 4 and up on any machine that I remotely care about. I have gotten along just fine without it and never looked back. As long as I live, there will always be at least one person NOT using IE. Period.

I don't want to go on the cart! (1)

Dracos (107777) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944213)

IE may not be dead now, but if MS don't stop implementing open standards how and if they feel like, IE will be loaded on the cart and clubbed in the head by Eric Idle.

Sure they've fixed a lot of stuff, but one of the most critical is the lack of support for the application/html+xml mime type.

ActiveX ain't dead: Blackberry to require IE (1)

weisen (461536) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944215)

According to RIM's webmaster, the reason that a web download of Google Talk for Blackberry (http://www.blackberry.com/GoogleTalk [blackberry.com]) requires IE is that this and future Blackberry applications will be installed directly via an ActiveX control. Since Blackberry Desktop is no longer "a required part of the BlackBerry solution," Internet Explorer is and they're not packaging software to be installed with BB Desktop.

I'm going to keep an old, virus infested Windows PC lying around.

ActiveX has to stay (2, Insightful)

ichin4 (878990) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944216)

The summary implies that the "right" engineering decision would be to eliminate ActiveX. This is complete bullshit.

ActiveX is a mechanism that allows compiled code delivered via the web to run on the client. This feature is an absolute must-have for many corporate environments.

Was Microsoft's ActiveX security framework insufficient? Absolutely. Were their implementation buggy? Yes. Were their security defaults too lax? Certainly. But with a feature as important to your customer base as this, the right solution isn't to cut the feature. It's to fix the problems.

Re:ActiveX has to stay (1)

throx (42621) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944333)

I agree 100%. IE has ActiveX. Mozilla has plugins. Both are extensibility interfaces that are essential for web browsing. Properly implemented and secured they are a great asset for the end user. Improperly implemented they just become a security or usability nightmare.

I'm not convinced either browser does it well yet but Firefox does seem better than IE.

This is absolutely true!!! (1)

JK23 (951485) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944276)

I agree 100% with this article "that there's a bright future for IE." ..... That there's a bright future for IE until the next version of Firefox comes out to smash in the ground where it belongs.

Download IE here. (1)

Tei (520358) | more than 8 years ago | (#14944304)

Because IE IS BROKEN, the webmaster need to test his design against the IE bugs. So If you are a Linux webmaster, you will need something like ie4linux [tatanka.com.br] to use IE5+IE5.5+IE6 under linux.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...