Beta
×

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!

Just what has Microsoft been doing for IE 7?

timothy posted about 8 years ago | from the i-e-is-a-scream dept.

354

Jeff Reifman writes "Last week, Windows columnist Paul Thurrott ripped into Microsoft for ignoring CSS standards with its upcoming Internet Explorer 7.0. "Microsoft has set back Web development by an immeasurable amount of time. My advice is simple: Boycott IE. It's a cancer on the Web that must be stopped. IE isn't secure and isn't standards-compliant, which makes it unworkable both for end users and Web content creators." With the redesign of my own site last month, I discovered just how non-compliant IE is with basic CSS: IE 52% vs. Firefox 93%. Is Microsoft purely incompetent and tone-deaf to customers — or simply counting on IE's non-compliance remaining a de-facto standard?"

cancel ×

354 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I vote de-facto standard (5, Insightful)

edflyerssn007 (897318) | about 8 years ago | (#15860870)

I believe that they are just hoping that IE remains the standard as it will come pre-installed with Vista and will be going out on automatic update, so the vast majority of windows users are going to move over to IE7 with-in a year or two.

-Ed

Re:I vote de-facto standard (2, Insightful)

NoScreenNamesLeft (958015) | about 8 years ago | (#15860917)

I believe that little strategy won't work now that IE won't be embedded into the OS. People will either be moving to Macs, or using Opera or Firefox depending on what suits their needs.

Re:I vote de-facto standard (5, Insightful)

Silas is back (765580) | about 8 years ago | (#15860962)

I hope you are right, since "the folk" is just too lazy (or call it dumb) to download a better browser.

I'm glad the IE-bashing gets popular even amongst Win-supporters, we Mac- and Linux-users have been alone on that trip for too long.

Auto-boycot (4, Insightful)

soloport (312487) | about 8 years ago | (#15861180)

Simple way to boycot:
if IE --> Download Firefox Link [mozilla.com]
else --> Welcome visitor!

Re:Auto-boycot (4, Informative)

envelope (317893) | about 8 years ago | (#15861617)

Apparently Newscloud tried that [newscloud.com] , and it just made a lot of people mad.

Re:I vote de-facto standard (1)

Fred Porry (993637) | about 8 years ago | (#15860948)

I totally agree- for users like my mother that use their computers about 3hours a week IE may be enough- I mean, what do you expect Microsoft to do? Publish Vista without browser? Develop another, a new Microsoft browser after all these years of customer-pain? They didnt change anything about this pain-in-the-*ss-browser, why should they start now?

Re:I vote de-facto standard (5, Interesting)

eln (21727) | about 8 years ago | (#15860995)

How about publishing Windows without a browser and allowing OEMs to choose what browser to bundle? Most people are going to be getting Vista bundled with their machines anyway, your average person doesn't upgrade their OS unless they're upgrading their computer anymore.

While some OEMs may choose to bundle IE7 anyway, I think that if Microsoft is barred from any reprisals, most OEMs are sick enough of Microsoft's pressure tactics over the years that they may choose to bundle something else, with the most obvious winner probably being Firefox (since it's the only other browser most people would have heard of).

Re:I vote de-facto standard (5, Insightful)

Deathbane27 (884594) | about 8 years ago | (#15861259)

Bundling IE doesn't prevent OEMs from doing their customers a favor by installing Firefox and making it the default browser. There's no good reason not to bundle it.

Plus, I'd rather be able to download and install Firefox on a newly-built computer using IE, than have to download it from another computer and copy it across the network or burn it onto a CD. And what if I don't have access to another computer when build time arrives?

Not having a browser installed = pain in the ass to get one installed = bad idea.

Re:I vote de-facto standard (1)

gihan_ripper (785510) | about 8 years ago | (#15861477)

Ah, this comment makes me feel old. Unbundling IE from Windows was the main issue in the United States v. Microsoft court case (1998-2000). Bundling IE had essentially knocked Netscape off the browser throne and Microsoft were being investigated for anti-competitive behaviour.

Microsoft argued (successfully) that IE is an integral part of Windows, hence cannot be unbundled. To an extent, they are correct and it wouldn't be a trivial a trivial matter for an OEM to remove IE and still retain a working system. For instance, one serious problem is that IE is required to access the Windows Update site.

Re:I vote de-facto standard (1)

AJWM (19027) | about 8 years ago | (#15861595)

Microsoft argued (successfully) that IE is an integral part of Windows

What part of losing the case do you consider successful? I suppose "successful" in the sense that they managed to avoid being slapped with perjury charges for faking the video that showed Windows running "worse" after IE was removed. Or successful in the sense that the penalties were reduced to the equivalent of a slap on the wrist.

Re:I vote de-facto standard (4, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | about 8 years ago | (#15861441)

"Hoping" is the wrong word. They know that they're guaranteed 85% of the user base, and don't see any reason they should care about any standards except their own.

And before somebody says, "OK, IE is the de-facto standard, we can all just code our pages to use it." Ask yourself this: when you write code in C++ or Java or Perl, do you blindly guess what might work? No, you look up the language features and APIs that are documented to do what you need done, and you use them. But when it comes to coding web pages there is no documentation. Yeah, there's the Microsoft documentation, but it's badly written, and it reflects an implementation that nobody outside of Microsoft really understands, and that could change at any time.

Standard compliance is important. Not to make your web pages work on everybody's browser. But to make them work at all.

Re:I vote de-facto standard (2, Interesting)

tux_fairy (907230) | about 8 years ago | (#15861547)

Why can't US govenment, and any other government pass a bill into senate that it is illegal to distribute the browser that is not fully CSS2 compliant? It's no different than having specs on car safety and emission rules.

IE developers use Firefox themselves (5, Funny)

theGeekDude (905574) | about 8 years ago | (#15860877)

Well, the IE developers use Firefox themselves anyway, so didnt bother putting in full support for CSS. After all it wont make any changes to their 'default' browsing experience....

Re:IE developers use Firefox themselves (4, Interesting)

WaZiX (766733) | about 8 years ago | (#15860958)

I use Firefox to design websites and imagine a web with a multitude of CSS and PNG transparency... Then of course comes the time when I open it in IE 6... And I start hating making webpages again. Thank you Microsoft, really.

The Percentages (5, Informative)

neonprimetime (528653) | about 8 years ago | (#15860897)

CSS 2.1 standard support:
IE 6: 52%
IE 7: 54%
Firefox 1.5: 93%
Opera 8.5: 93%
Opera 9: 96%


Ok, so I agree that the numbers seem to be good estimates, about right. But how on earth do they actually come up with these percentages? Is is a simple cumulative count of all css tags and attributes that work vs. don't work? Or do some have more weight than others? Seriously, they seem like fabricated numbers ... just like the /. article earlier today about how wide the universe is.

Re:The Percentages (5, Funny)

Reverend528 (585549) | about 8 years ago | (#15860952)

These numbers are based on web developer usage.

52% use IE 6
54% use IE 7
93% use firefox 1.5
93% use opera 8.5
96% use opera 9

As a result, most web sites (96%) look good in opera 9, making it the most compliant browser. Unfortunately, the other 292% of web sites look pretty bad in it.

Re:The Percentages (4, Informative)

RonnyJ (651856) | about 8 years ago | (#15861036)

Here's the link that goes over all the figures: http://www.webdevout.net/browser_support_summary.p hp?uas=IE6-IE7-FX1_5-OP8-OP9 [webdevout.net]

Re:The Percentages (3, Informative)

neonprimetime (528653) | about 8 years ago | (#15861155)

Thank you for your link. I found another link [webdevout.net] from your link which answers my question from above.

Re:The Percentages (2, Funny)

the jerk store (960388) | about 8 years ago | (#15861177)

78% of all statistics are made up on the spot

Re:The Percentages (4, Funny)

neonprimetime (528653) | about 8 years ago | (#15861238)

91.42% of all /. postings are not worth replying to

Boycott (5, Insightful)

kevin_conaway (585204) | about 8 years ago | (#15860918)

Boycott I.E.? How are people supposed to do that? Just code to the standards and screw the users?

Most users don't care about your ideology or standards. Some of them aren't even aware that there are other browsers, much less why they would want one. If your site doesn't work, they'll just move on to one that does, not complain to Microsoft that xyz.com doesn't render properly.

Re:Boycott (3, Interesting)

GigsVT (208848) | about 8 years ago | (#15860969)

Just code to the standards and screw the users?

Yes.

Maybe you weren't around then, but it didn't bother people one bit to put "Best viewed in Netscape" or "Best viewer in IE" on their site.

"Best viewed in any W3C compliant browser" is even less burdonsome for end users, and is not some incomprehensible thing, it has tons of precedent.

I've never had a user have any serious problems with the sites I design, once I explain to them that it's their browser that is broken, not the site.

Re:Boycott (4, Insightful)

kevin_conaway (585204) | about 8 years ago | (#15861019)

Maybe you weren't around then, but it didn't bother people one bit to put "Best viewed in Netscape" or "Best viewer in IE" on their site.

You're referring to the golden era known as HTML 3.2?

"Best viewed in any W3C compliant browser"

Thats the problem, none of the browsers fully implement any of the standards. Some are just better than others.

Re:Boycott (1)

ewl1217 (922107) | about 8 years ago | (#15861481)

Thats the problem, none of the browsers fully implement any of the standards. Some are just better than others.
While that may be true, at least the makers of all "alternative browsers" (anything but IE) try to make their browsers standards-compliant. Internet Explorer's "standards support" is just a joke, and even the biggest M$ fanboy knows it.

Re:Boycott (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15861038)

Oooh, yes. And lets bring back "best viewed in 800x600" and those magnificent gif animations too.

Re:Boycott (4, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 8 years ago | (#15860971)

Sad but true.
I would vote for people recommending FireFox or Opera on every website. Maybe adding functionality for standards compliant browser that IE lacks.
The main thing is NO IE ONLY WEBSITES.
Don't make them and don't use them.
Yes sites need to support IE but they better support browsers that support standards just as well if not better.

Re:Boycott (1)

Rinzai (694786) | about 8 years ago | (#15861450)

I don't know if you're aware of this, but the HTML validator at W3 doesn't even work right.

If The Man can't even make his stuff work, why would you expect anyone else to?

Standards can be used as a means to stifle innovation. I shouldn't have to point out examples.

No matter what, slavish adherence to standards created by The Man (and let's face it, W3 is just another instance of The Man) makes you, well, a slave to The Man.

Power to the people, brother!

Re:Boycott (2)

chrismcdirty (677039) | about 8 years ago | (#15861000)

Perhaps supporters of W3C standards should start sending out installers in email to our non-tech friends/family under the pretense that if they don't blindly run the executable and pass it along to all of their friends, bad things will surely happen to them.

Re:Boycott (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15861087)

You know, that's not half bad. Look how successful some of the phishing scams/trojan scams are. Just a link saying something along the lines of "On -random date- the internet is going to be very badly broken, and emails are going to start costing money. The only way to prevent it is to use Firefox -linky- and Thunderbird -linky-. Upgrade now before you are left out of the Internet!" or some such tripe. If it works for the bad guys, why not the good guys? (Other than the immorality)

Re:Boycott (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15861021)

> Boycott I.E.? How are people supposed to do that? Just code to the standards and screw the users?

There are plenty of ways to crash IE with malformed HTML. I seem to recall that a number of them haven't been fixed yet, and even if they have been, not everyone is using the latest version.

No better way to convince someone that IE is broken than to break it right in front of them...

Re:Boycott (2, Insightful)

bigbigbison (104532) | about 8 years ago | (#15861023)

Is it a boycott when you don't have the option to use IE as is the case for users of anything but Windows??

Re:Boycott (1)

aztektum (170569) | about 8 years ago | (#15861067)

Way to cave in. Everyone I know that uses a computer has switched to FF (family, friends and a lot of coworkers, since they use Firefox interally). Effectively boycotting. It's having some ideals of your own that you live up to that matters more than the rest of the world following your lead. And not all of those ideals have to be Earth shattering.

Like I say, I'm not out the change *the* world, just out to make *my* world work for me.

Google is your friend (maybe) (5, Interesting)

Jetson (176002) | about 8 years ago | (#15861095)

When Google announced that they were going to start offering an alternative search for blind people that rates sites based on how well they comply to the W3C usability standards, I really thought they might follow up with a search engine that rates the results according to general standards compliance. I'd love to see "works in any browser" sites on the first page and "IE-only" sites on page 10.... Suddenly all of those commercial sites would have an incentive to make their sites work instead of just making them flash-y.

Re:Google is your friend (maybe) (1)

jeblucas (560748) | about 8 years ago | (#15861482)

...instead of just making them flash-y
You mean, instead of using the <blink> tag. Nothing gets attention like a <blink> tag. Hotcha.

best idea yet (1)

zogger (617870) | about 8 years ago | (#15861571)

Really! If Google did that it would be most excellent! It is logical, fair, practical and do-able, and it does follow the precedent they just set themselves.

Re:Boycott (0, Flamebait)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 8 years ago | (#15861261)

Boycott I.E.? How are people supposed to do that?

By not using IE. Its not that hard; I have IE on both of my PCs at home, but the only thing I ever use it for is accessing Windows Update. (If I had another IE-only site I had to access—I've encountered a few in the past though they seem to be getting rarer at least for things I need—I'd use it for them, too.)

Just code to the standards and screw the users?

Ah, I see the problem. You think that "people" is an alias for "web developers".

Re:Boycott (1)

crossmr (957846) | about 8 years ago | (#15861301)

Actually yes. Code your page the way you want and provide a link to the browser that displays it properly like Firefox. If enough websites do that, you'll see a shift.

Re:Boycott (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15861337)

<rant>That is because of Micro$hit and their god-damned tactics to force others to use other Micro$hit products. If you build a website in Frontpage, others must use Micro$hit Internet Exploder to view it properly. M$ also ties everyone into office as their formats don't render worth a shit on anything else. Micro$hit and any other closed sourced bullshit company needs to be outlawed in every fucking country. If it's closed source, they can find ways to monopolize not only the whole god damned software industry, but every other god damned industry as well.</rant>

Re:Boycott (1)

debiansid (881350) | about 8 years ago | (#15861344)

Just code to the standards and screw the users?
It's not necessarily that way. It's entirely possible to code to the standards and still whip out a page that looks good on both IE and Firefox (and KHTML, Opera, etc.). It just requires developers to work a wee bit harder. you're paid by the hour anyway aren't you?

Re:Boycott (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15861348)

Until it's a site they really need or want to use, Google and Yahoo for example, i think have enough power to make people use a different browser. It's going to take the big internet players to boycott IE 7, they're going to have to have the balls to do it, which I doubt they do.

Re:Boycott (1)

implowry (989364) | about 8 years ago | (#15861376)

Just code to the standards and screw the users?

Yes, code to the standards, but I disagree on screwing them.

I have been forced to upgrade technology to be able to view a modern web sites I don't see why anyone else should be different. I started using Netscape 3 and when Netscape 4 came out with its support for frames, I was forced to upgrade to see the content. The same thing happens everytime a new Flash player comes out, I upgrade. Security flaws, I upgrade.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't think that expecting people to have a browser that supports modern web sites and standards is too much to ask. In the end the users get a better web experience and I can't fathom who would think that improving the user experience is 'screwing them'.

Re:Boycott (1)

mashmorgan (615200) | about 8 years ago | (#15861433)

"Screw the users"...

Yes thats a good Idea.. Fuck it I'm fed up .. gonna put up a warning in red big time Best viewed without IE

Fuck it that will swing 200 users on the LAN ;-) .. why not .. I'm fed up of this IE shite ,big big time.... Like a turd that is dragging behind my ass.. it a big Internet Explorer shit and no matter how much I wipe my ass its still there... Need to make it crusty, get a knife and cut it Off...

Re:Boycott (1)

MWelchUK (585458) | about 8 years ago | (#15861456)

If your site doesn't work, they'll just move on to one that does, not complain to Microsoft that xyz.com doesn't render properly.
Actually, in my experience they will complain to those around them that the Internet thinggy is broken and this other one (firefox) still works.

Re:Boycott (1)

fm6 (162816) | about 8 years ago | (#15861467)

I've actually run across one or two web sites that detected I was using IE, and told me to go away. But you're right, that's not a viable strategy.

Extra goodies (1)

6031769 (829845) | about 8 years ago | (#15861667)

You are right, of course. The best strategy, IMHO, and the one which I most frequently advocate is to give the non-IE user some extra goodies. In much the same way that some sites will use Javascript to add a few bells and whistles, but still provide a usable service for non-Javascript browsers, you can code sites which are perfectly usable in IE, but have a couple of added bonuses which the non-IE users can take advantage of. Even if it's simply faster downloads because the same styling requires less markup, that's still a benefit to the end user.

Re:Boycott (4, Insightful)

the_duke_of_hazzard (603473) | about 8 years ago | (#15861598)

BOC Customer: "Why does my site not work in the new version of IE?" Me: "Well, Mr Big, I'm afraid Microsoft does not conform to the CSS standard, so we're boycotting them." Customer: "What the fuck are you talking about? Make my site work or you're fired." EOC

I'm doing beta of IE7 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15860936)

And it rocks!

Shocking! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15860940)

C'mon, give them a break..Microsquash has always followed "standards"...their own.

De-facto standard not difficult for them (4, Insightful)

SirTicksAlot (576078) | about 8 years ago | (#15860963)

It will not be MS that will make it the de-facto standard, but the people that code websites. Most commercial websites "code for IE" only and therefore force it's customer base to have IE wether they want it or not. The only workaround is to not use that company's service. But then again the people that actually use these services may not have a say as to which services they use because these services are mandated by the companies they work for.

Hopefully this will change soon.

Re:De-facto standard not difficult for them (5, Insightful)

Tokin84 (919029) | about 8 years ago | (#15860985)

Hopefully places will stop coding for IE since they dropped Mac support. While the Mac user is not the biggest user, it is a percentage, and coding to IE will certainly remove their ability to use the site. Just stick to open standards... is it really that hard?

Re:De-facto standard not difficult for them (1)

jb.hl.com (782137) | about 8 years ago | (#15861178)

Most commercial websites "code for IE" only and therefore force it's customer base to have IE wether they want it or not.

I've not seen a page that's done this in years. Companies these days are far more aware of the use of non-IE browsers.

Re:De-facto standard not difficult for them (1)

Penguin Follower (576525) | about 8 years ago | (#15861271)

Then you obviously have never worked in the automotive business, as I have. I'll speak about Toyota, since that is where I'm most knowledgable. Toyota dealerships have to access a website called Toyota Dealer Daily to order parts, put in warranty claims, and other things. This site uses so much proprietary IE javascript that Firefox can't even load the login page (and you have to login to do ANYTHING on Dealer Daily). I worked at a dealer where we had Toyota, Chevy, Dodge, Kia, and Hyundai, and all of those sites stipulated that you must use IE to access the site, but I worked in the Toyota end of the dealership, so I can only vouch for Toyota's IE only site.

Let me introduce you to one more IE commercial site. This company [everdream.com] has an asset managment, patch management, online backup, etc... service that is hosted by them, and you access everything through a web interface. I'm quite familiar with it, as the company that I work for partners with them more than I like (nothing I can do about it). It doesn't work in any other browser than IE. Others need not even apply. :(

Re:De-facto standard not difficult for them (2)

plague3106 (71849) | about 8 years ago | (#15861466)

That's because its easier to support just one browser, when your site is limited in who views it (that is, its not really public). Why should a corperate intranet or extranet put any effort into supporting anything else? Seriously? Why should Toyota dealers be able to use anything they want?

Re:De-facto standard not difficult for them (1)

berzerke (319205) | about 8 years ago | (#15861664)

Let me introduce you to one more IE commercial site....

ADP is another IE only site (to actually do anything). I had one client looking at them for a time clock program. BUT, it was IE only. They asked me about it. I told them it would be a great idea to give everyone easy access to IE again (they use Firefox and Mozilla). It would keep me busy cleaning up the malware, and they would have fun with pop-ups all the time. Oh, and you might want to have a few extra workstations on hand for when I have to wipe and re-install to minimize downtime. $$$ for me!!! (I'm part time hourly).

They wound up telling ADP to shove it and I set up PHP timeclock [sourceforge.net] which they've been using happily for several months now. Even recommended it to another sister company.

I meant to add this to my other post. (1)

Penguin Follower (576525) | about 8 years ago | (#15861294)

I meant to add this to my post above, but here:

If you go here [everdream.com] you will notice they disable the login box if you visit that page using anything but IE. That page is the login for the "Everdream Control Center", which is where you manage everything. Service requests/help desk, remote control clients, asset management, etc.

OK, I wasn't paying attention... (1)

Penguin Follower (576525) | about 8 years ago | (#15861316)

Don't you hate when you reply to the wrong post :/

Don't ask (5, Insightful)

Bloke down the pub (861787) | about 8 years ago | (#15860965)

Don't ask what Microsoft can do for IE7; ask what IE7 can do for Microsoft.

200...5 article? (5, Informative)

cpct0 (558171) | about 8 years ago | (#15860989)

Unless they are mistaken, this is a 2K5 article. And it talks about the beta 1 release, I got beta 3.

Now on the topic of better CSS, I think IE7b3 is better than what is advertised in that article. It's still far from perfect though.

Re:200...5 article? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15861047)

2K5? You mean you couldn't be arsed to type that extra 0?

Re:200...5 article? (1)

the_bard17 (626642) | about 8 years ago | (#15861111)

Anonymous Coward? You mean you couldn't be arsed to log in? ;op

Mod parent up (1)

AstrumPreliator (708436) | about 8 years ago | (#15861302)

The article is from a year ago. I know MS bashing around here is "cool" and all but come on. If we're going to complain about IE7 then at least complain about the current version.

Re:200...5 article? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15861460)

Let him know on his blog [idealog.us] .

What is their motivation? (1)

Tim_sama (993132) | about 8 years ago | (#15861076)

Ok, Microsoft doesn't get any money from IE, as far as I can tell. They spend lots of money and time doing something that doesn't make a profit for them, when they could just leave the creation of free web browsers to the Open Source community. Why do they do this? This is a serious question.

Is it to build/maintain brand strength?
Is it just to screw people like the Netscape guys?
Is it to increase page hits on msn.com (because IE comes with that as the default homepage), so they can charge more for advertising there?
Is it because they really have nothing better to do with their money?
As far as I can tell, Microsoft makes decisions based on what they think will make them the most money, and that alone. In that light, IE is an anomaly. It just doesn't fit.

Re:What is their motivation? (1)

Snarfangel (203258) | about 8 years ago | (#15861142)

Their motivation is to prevent people from doing things that don't benefit Microsoft. Having an office suite or an OS integrated with a browser only helps Microsoft if they are the ones providing it. If people actually have a choice -- say, if their word processor was a slick web application rather than a CD "licensed" from MS -- it hurts their bottom line.

WTF? (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 8 years ago | (#15861184)

Ok, Microsoft doesn't get any money from IE, as far as I can tell.

Okay, just WTF?

Do you believe that you really get a FREE toy with your box of cereal? That you get free gifts if you pump gas at station X?

Offcourse not, anyone who is not a complete slave to advertising knows that these free items are paid for by you!

Same with IE. It comes with the OS wich you paid for. IE could only be free if you could somehow still use it without having paid for the OS wich it needs to run on. Since you can't (the old mac version of IE is an oddity) it can't be said to be free anymore then say windows notepad is, dos, or windows media player.

MS sells not an OS as such but a desktop, sorta like what you get when you use linux/gnu/(kde/gnome/whatever). This means they have to include basic tools. In the same way that a car dealer usually throws in a set of tires and even a tank of gas, for free!

Believing IE to be free really is a truly stupid mistake to make wich shows that you lack any true understanding of how the world works. It reminds me of especially young people who get taken in by mobile phone plans that offer free this and free that and thinking they are getting everything for free. Yeah right, offcourse not.

Just check how free IE is anyday. Call MS, say you aren't running any legal version of their OS and want your free copy in a usable form. Good luck.

Whenever I think consumer watchdogs want to create to much of a nanny state to protect retards from getting themselves killed someone like you comes along and shows just why we need so many fucking laws on truth in advertising. Yeah it makes the world more boring but sadly some people just can't see through the bullshit and we are not allowed to lock them up anymore.

Re:WTF? (1)

Tim_sama (993132) | about 8 years ago | (#15861353)

Whenever I think consumer watchdogs want to create to much of a nanny state to protect retards from getting themselves killed someone like you comes along and shows just why we need so many fucking laws on truth in advertising. Yeah it makes the world more boring but sadly some people just can't see through the bullshit and we are not allowed to lock them up anymore.

What the hell is your problem? I ask an honest question, and you jump on me like I'm one of those people who wants the government to babysit me. The truth of the matter is, if they released IE6 with Vista instead of putting all this effort into IE7, the same people who were going to buy Vista already would still buy it. The majority of people don't know the difference, and anyone who does know the difference is just going to download Firefox or Opera anyway, so in actuality, creating a new version of IE shouldn't really affect sales at all.

Therefore, if creating a new version doesn't actually make them any more money than they would already, that means that if they didn't bother making new versions of IE, they would reduce their expenses while maintaining the same price point, which would give them a larger net profit (which seems to be the only thing Microsoft cares about). It's basic economics.

Mmmkay?

Re:WTF? (1)

Tweekster (949766) | about 8 years ago | (#15861568)

No one is buying Vista.

People are buying a new computer. It makes no difference to the masses that vista is on it.

Re:What is their motivation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15861240)

As far as I can tell, Microsoft makes decisions based on what they think will make them the most money, and that alone. In that light, IE is an anomaly. It just doesn't fit.

Then you must acquit!

/ The Wookie Antitrust defense

Re:What is their motivation? (1)

westlake (615356) | about 8 years ago | (#15861623)

Microsoft doesn't get any money from IE, as far as I can tell. They spend lots of money and time doing something that doesn't make a profit for them, when they could just leave the creation of free web browsers to the Open Source community. Why do they do this? This is a serious question.

The web browser has become a standard part of any OS distribution. It tends to take on the look and feel of the OS experience as a whole. This is generally considered a plus by the non-technical end-users. who are Microsoft's core market.

"Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" (5, Insightful)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | about 8 years ago | (#15861114)

"Is Microsoft purely incompetent and tone-deaf to customers - or simply counting on IE's non-compliance remaining a de-facto standard?"

Microsoft's business model is heavily dependent, not on actually giving customers what they want, but on tricks like "embrace, extend, extinguish". Microsoft will make more money if everyone follows Microsoft's non-standard way of doing things, because then everyone will need Microsoft software to see web sites.

If it weren't for the fact that it is temporarily possible to trick users who have little technical knowledge, Microsoft might be only barely profitable.

--
Will the violence of the U.S. government will end the 3,000 years of violence in the Middle East, or increase it?

Article from 2005 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15861122)

The article cited was posted on August 02, 2005. IE7 has released 3 betas in the year since then, and although certainly not perfect, the CSS support has gotten substantially better.

Why don't boycott Vista all together (4, Interesting)

guruevi (827432) | about 8 years ago | (#15861124)

Really, they made a good step in the direction with W2K and later with XP it was nice for end users and W2K3 is bearable but wtf are they doing with Vista. There is nothing exasperatingly new (like usage of the NT kernel in W2K) or a breakthrough in GUI (as with the speed of the GUI in XP) or a sysadmin-friendly environment (as in W2K3). In fact, nothing has really changed, a little GUI painted on but that's it.

IE7 still not W3C compliant or anywhere near there, still giant loopholes in the OS. Still using NTFS instead of the promised WinFS.

I was really (as an MS hater) looking forward to maybe a change within Microsoft since WGates left (and we all know a lot of work goes before the actual announcement) and Vista coming out and having promising features announced, but I can't see anything of that in their new OS.

As for a change, Stevie is announcing stuff at some convention and I am astounded. I mean, I didn't know they could do a lot more improvements in 10.4, but look at the Leopard Sneak Preview and a versioning file system and all kinds of other neat stuff... and that's right after a devving freeze in Vista which was supposed to copy some neat features out of OS X 10.3, maybe even 10.4, heck they could even copy stuff out of KDE for all I care, it still look better.

Microsoft (Gates or Ballmer, whoever has the power): I am very disappointed in you guys. I work in a mixed environment (Linux, Windows, Mac) and I have heard things in that my company (which has a bigass license with you) moving to Mac's for some non-critical users (that only need Office and to surf the intranet). If Apple pulls it off and actually builds in Win32 support in their OS, you are going to become just another SCO within a few years.

Re:Why don't boycott Vista all together (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15861480)

Well, in regards to a versioning file system, I assume you know that Windows XP and Windows 2003 already have this, it's called Volume Shadow Copy (look it up). It will also be activated by default in Vista.

What are they doing for IE7? (3, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | about 8 years ago | (#15861133)

I'd rather know what they would do for a Klondike Bar.

Hopefully nothing like what is said here [hastypastry.net] . Warning: there there be crappiness.

Paul Thurrott? (3, Insightful)

R.Mo_Robert (737913) | about 8 years ago | (#15861160)

In the linked article, he describes CSS as "an HTML-like technology that Web developers use to create Web sites." That's really a stretch, especially on a site like Windows IT Pro. (Couldn't he have said, for example, that it's used to style pages?) But I digress.

In any case, he can complain about IE being stuck in the 90's all he wants--I get as frustrated with it as the next Web developer--but has anyone looked at his site (or Windows IT Pro, for that matter, except I doubt he has much control over that one)? It's a mess of tables, inline Javascript and CSS, and it doesn't even have a DOCTYPE. And he's complaining about standards? IE's buggy rendering and the compatibility mode in Firefox and other browsers is probably the only thing holding that site together.

The article reads like just another attempt to bash Microsoft. It's even a bit hypocritical (see my last paragraph)...

Me thinks this article is a wee bit old... (1)

MSFanBoi2 (930319) | about 8 years ago | (#15861164)

Sure it was posted recently, but the article itself only mentioned IE 7.0 Beta1, which was superceeded by both IE 7.0 Beta 2 and now Beta 3...

Persistently nag users until they switch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15861198)

I vote for webmasters to insert code at every page that displays a dialog box, saying "WARNING: Internet Explorer is wholly inadequate for a proper Web browsing experience. Please use either the Opera or Firefox browser before proceeding further." Then if the user ignores this three times in a row, he gets Lastmeasured.

Re:Persistently nag users until they switch (1)

westlake (615356) | about 8 years ago | (#15861543)

I vote for webmasters to insert code at every page that displays a dialog box, saying "WARNING: Internet Explorer is wholly inadequate for a proper Web browsing experience. Please use either the Opera or Firefox browser before proceeding further."

Your client's competitor's are never more than one click away.
You do whatever is necessary to reach and hold his target audience or you find employment elsewhere.

ACID2 - Whoopdeedoo! (4, Insightful)

kthejoker (931838) | about 8 years ago | (#15861211)

Seriously, they're complaining about the Acid2? The most irrelevant web standards test ever devised?

Seriously!?

IE7 fixes the Holly Hack, the box model, PNGs, the pixel jog, the double margin float, child selectors, position:fixed, the XMLHttpRequest object, XML degradation, the phantom box, percentage vs. auto, the PEEKABOO bug (Oh My God - line-height bug, too!), EMACScript degradation ...

IE7 is waaaaaaaaaaaaay closer to Firefox and Opera than IE6. And because they have a new product, they're going to work harder on CSS2.1 for the next year while they claw their way back into their 90+% market share.

I could honestly care less about ACID2 compliance, and the people who do are impractical pedants. ESPECIALLY when IE6 fails so many more basic standards tests than ACID2, all of which IE7 is fixing.

It is like complaining that you passed calculus without knowing how to use a slide rule. Ridiculous.

Re:ACID2 - Whoopdeedoo! (3, Informative)

John Fulmer (5840) | about 8 years ago | (#15861387)

Fixing long-standing bugs =! Standards compliance.

jf

Re:ACID2 - Whoopdeedoo! (1)

tashanna (409911) | about 8 years ago | (#15861525)

Ummm... How do you use a slide rule? There's no buttons and I can't figure out where to put in the batteries. My Mathematica [wolfram.com] teacher referred to them and several people laughed, but I didn't get the joke.

- Tash
Hybrids [tashcorp.net]

P.S.: Behold, thy name is sarcasm.

Re:ACID2 - Whoopdeedoo! (5, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | about 8 years ago | (#15861544)

IE7 fixes the Holly Hack, the box model, PNGs, the pixel jog, the double margin float,

All of these are bugfixes, not additional support for CSS.

child selectors, position:fixed,

Yes, these are improvements to CSS support.

the XMLHttpRequest object,

This is only part of draft specifications at this stage.

XML degradation

This is a workaround for proprietary behaviour that gives false positives in Internet Explorer 6. Doctype switching isn't part of any specification, it's intentional misrendering. Not to mention the fact that it wouldn't even be a problem if Internet Explorer supported XHTML in the first place.

the phantom box, percentage vs. auto, the PEEKABOO bug (Oh My God - line-height bug, too!),

More bugfixes, not additional support.

EMACScript degradation ...

What are you referring to? They haven't made any changes to their JScript engine, which is their implementation of ECMAScript.

All in all, I see a lot of bugfixes, but hardly anything in the way of adding missing support for parts of CSS. Sure, they added selectors, but they missed out tables and generated content, which are huge parts of the specification. Sure, they added a workaround for people using faux XHTML, but they didn't actually add XHTML support. And I don't know what you mean by "ECMAScript degradation", but they still have a non-standard event model instead of the DOM event model.

IE7 is waaaaaaaaaaaaay closer to Firefox and Opera than IE6.

Come off it. Bugfixes are not a great leap in functionality. Sure, it's great that we finally have them, but to characterise this as closing the gap between the browsers in any meaningful way is exaggeration beyond belief.

I could honestly care less about ACID2 compliance, and the people who do are impractical pedants.

Er, some of the things that Acid2 tests for are things you are describing as fixed in Internet Explorer 7, so obviously some of the things in Acid2 are important to you.

And, wearing my impractical pedant hat, I have to point out that you are saying that people who care about Acid2 less than you are impractical pedants, which makes no sense.

Re:ACID2 - Whoopdeedoo! (1)

iangoldby (552781) | about 8 years ago | (#15861552)

Unfortunately:

Recently the Microsoft blog told us that some of our CSS hacks will stop working in IE7, a fact we detailed in our first IE7 article. While this is generally good news, it is a bit disturbing that the Holly hack in particular will cease to function while many of the layout problems it is meant to fix will still be there, and will still need fixing.

-- from Position is Everything [positioniseverything.net] , the authors of the Holly Hack.

Re:ACID2 - Whoopdeedoo! (2, Insightful)

Dracos (107777) | about 8 years ago | (#15861589)

First of all, a correction to the article itself. IE hasn't set back web development, it has held back web development, since IE6 was released

The ACID2 test may seem irrelevant based on its content (the smiley face), but it is actually a very intense yet concise test of CSS2 box model and selectors support. IE7 fails ACID2, so your claim that IE7 fixes box model support is false.

MS has only taken the occasion of IE7 to fix the specific issues that developers have been shouting the loudest about for more than half a decade, most of which you list. Unfortunately, from what I've seen, they have added more hacks to the clunky rendering engine from IE5 (or earlier), instead of developing a new rendering core from scratch. IE7 will still not have the level of support for web standards that other browsers have had for years.

MS has specifically stated that IE7 will not support the application/xml+xhtml mime type. This is a simple thing that most people overlook the importance of. The so-called "Web 2.0" cannot be fully realized without it.

Excluding Netscape 4.x, IE has the worst support for W3C standards of any mainstream GUI browser. IE7 will only make marginal improvements. The lastest verbal vomit from Redmond regarding compliance improvements basically says, "wait for IE8 and 9". I've seen nothing about IE7 and CSS3, of which all other modern GUI browsers now implement some subset.

So, what has MS been doing with IE7? Much ado about almost nothing. IE7 seems to have the same incremental standards support that Firefox 2 will have; the main goal of both of these seems to be user interface, privacy, and security improvements. In 2 years, we'll see how Firefox 3, Opera 10, Safari, and IE7.1 compare.

Re:ACID2 - Whoopdeedoo! (1)

Excors (807434) | about 8 years ago | (#15861593)

Acid2? The most irrelevant web standards test ever devised?

It's "irrelevant" only for IE7, because IE6 was so far behind that Microsoft still hasn't been able to catch up. For browsers that are already quite good at CSS, and web developers who are targeting those browsers, it helps to provide a valuable step up in standards compliance.

The Acid2 test is using real specified features that have some value to web developers, else they wouldn't even be in the CSS spec. It's certainly not the best test case to help the people who are trying to implement the features, because everything is mixed together and each feature is tested only a couple of times - but it provides the general public with a visible way to follow a significant part of the browsers' increasing standards compliance, which motivates the browser developers to fix their standards-compliance issues.

We should be happy that Microsoft is fixing IE6 bugs, and that they are starting with the most widespread and problematic ones instead of worrying about a single high-visibility test that is worthless if the more basic parts of CSS are not well supported. That's what they should be doing given their situation, and the IE developers should be thanked for the progress they've been making in that area. But it doesn't change the fact that IE7 has a worse implementation of standards than other major browsers, nor the idea that IE is holding back progress on the web.

Re:ACID2 - Whoopdeedoo! (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | about 8 years ago | (#15861594)

Seriously, they're complaining about the Acid2? The most irrelevant web standards test ever devised?

Acid2 is a bunch of random CSS and other standards tests to see if certain often broken parts of the standard actually work right. It is a reasonable torture test, but certainly nothing IE is ready to try for. It is like entering a Yugo in a monster truck contest.

IE7 is waaaaaaaaaaaaay closer to Firefox and Opera than IE6.

Well, for my own personal test the standards compliant markup I maintain looks pretty much the same in Firefox, Opera, Safari, Konquerer, and every other non-IE browser I could find. In IE 6, it shows none of the formatting. In IE 7 it shows none of the formatting. Thus, they both fall into the same category for me, broken MS crap that with all their money and developers can't manage what several commercial companies and several community projects managed years ago.

YEAR OLD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15861329)

HELLO. EARTH TO SLASHDOT.

The article was written on, wait for it: August 02, 2005. Its over a year old. Its entirely out of date. IE 7 is on Beta 3 now, not Beta 1, and Paul has blogged very favorably on the CSS support in the most recent build. Many comments so far have compared the CURRENT state of other browsers to the state of an initial IE browser a YEAR ago. PLEASE update the submission.

The way to fix the problem (1)

ManoSinistra (983539) | about 8 years ago | (#15861342)

The way to fix the problem with IE is not to tell M$ developers to "get with it" because frankly, I don't believe they ever will. What you need to do is to start suggesting alternate browsers to people who don't know the difference between "the big blue E" and another browser. Let's be honest, probably no well-informed person would actually decide that IE is the best browser option out there. Groups such as spreadfirefox.com are doing an excellent job telling the masses that they need a new deal.

This article is a year old (5, Informative)

epohs (775630) | about 8 years ago | (#15861384)

Am I taking crazy pills, or is this article not over 1 year old? [ August 02, 2005 ]

Rhetorical questions & /. (1)

penguinstorm (575341) | about 8 years ago | (#15861429)

> "Is Microsoft purely incompetent and tone-deaf to customers -- or simply counting on IE's non-compliance remaining a de-facto standard?"

I didn't think rhetorical questions had any place on a public discussion board.

Extra Speculation. (1)

crhylove (205956) | about 8 years ago | (#15861430)

I've switched over about 50 people to Firefox. The ramifications of this are significant. First: It's a real black eye for Microsoft for every user I've switched, not because they switched, but because of how much happier they are with Firefox, and how that makes them view MS overall. IE has gotten so bad that the majority of people I switched now view MS as a whole as inferior, and are looking for alternatives in other software realms as well. I haven't had the gall to switch anybody off of windows yet, but I've switched SEVERAL people quite happily from MS Office to OpenOffice, from WMV to BSplayer and MPC, and almost every outlook user is a happy thunderbird user now.

I've gotten a few people to switch from photoshop to the gimp as well, for the simple reason that it is free for any future upgrade.

Firefox deserves HUGE kudos for making an enormous mark in the mind share of the average computer user and representing FOSS. When I explain the benefits of FOSS and people get used to Firefox, overall they want as much open source as they can get from there on out.

I know because I'm one of them.

My prediction is that MS will loose customers for ALL of their products gradually because of the inroads Firefox has made into the web browser space. Open Source is the inevitable future for most software, and even grandmas and grandpas and kids are starting to get that idea.

Now if only we could some decent FOSS games.....

rhY

For the best browser experience... (5, Funny)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | about 8 years ago | (#15861513)

...go to http://www.ie7.com [ie7.com]

(Seriously. The best browser is there.)

The Answer (1)

rocketjam (696072) | about 8 years ago | (#15861520)

Is Microsoft purely incompetent and tone-deaf to customers -- or simply counting on IE's non-compliance remaining a de-facto standard?

Yes.

Which is faster?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15861533)

Under windows, I use firefox for most (> 80%) of my browsing, but when I compare rendering and user interface interraction ie always feel faster, and seems to consume less memory.

Re:Which is faster?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15861638)

I have noticed this with almost all GNU software running under windows... the best solution I have been able to come up with (and my GUI coding is not that hot so someone could possibly correct me) is that the GNU software loads everything up and THEN display's it.

In my experience IE may seem to load faster, but if you watch it, first the little window opens up, and then the menu bar is populated... etc. (note that this isn't as noticable on high performance systems, but I'm a cheap bastard) Firefox (or Opera, or Mozilla) seem to block on a blank screen and then BAM it is all there.

My $0.02

How can I boycott IE7 when it won't run? (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 8 years ago | (#15861538)

99 percent of our desktops are Linux, and every time we try to download the package, it refuses to run.

omg (1)

trimCoder (954838) | about 8 years ago | (#15861560)

Microsoft wants to make money??? no way... bs.. what is the world coming too.. And how are they going to do this? By making IE7 work on more websites than its competitors. Face the cold hard facts, websites are built by developers for IE first and foremost. Most internet users use IE so for developers, all other browsers should be a lesser goal. Thus we have the internet which is mainly written for IE.. Non tech customers use IE for this reason, because more sites work on IE. Microsoft does not give a dam about standards and compliance made by other people and why should they. They care about making a browser that works for there customers.. the end user.

Just to let you guys know (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15861646)

That article that was posted was a year ago. That's right August 2005. This is August 2006 and IE 7 is about to go to RTM. On August 2005 Beta 1 just had came out. Honestly, I would not pay any attention to something that is radically out of date.

Woof woof (3, Interesting)

davmoo (63521) | about 8 years ago | (#15861649)

Whether you all like it or not (and note that I use Firefox myself), Microsoft Internet Explod...um...Explorer is the proverbial tail that wags the dog. In the minds of the great majority of computer users, Microsoft *sets* the standard, not breaks it, and you will not convince them otherwise. You can whine and moan all you want, but I got 5 bucks that says when IE7 rolls out, we start seeing a new round of sites that work *only* in IE7, and when you complain the response will be words to the effect of "get a real browser like everyone else uses".

Microsoft fights while everyone whimpers (1)

zymano (581466) | about 8 years ago | (#15861654)

You fight back.

The internet cosortium should fight back. But they won't. Because they're soft.

Make sites only available to browsers that aren't IE.

Microsoft fans can give their excuses.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>