Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 7 RC1 Released

CowboyNeal posted more than 7 years ago | from the new-and-improved dept.

216

Kawahee writes "Microsoft, in conjunction with the announcement that they have finished Windows Vista RC1 have released Internet Explorer 7 RC1. Further commentary from the IE Blog post: 'The RC1 build includes improvements in performance, stability, security, and application compatibility. You may not notice many visible changes from the Beta 3 release; all we did was listen to your feedback, fix bugs that you reported, and make final adjustments to our CSS support.'"

cancel ×

216 comments

Obligatory joke (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16029832)

Yeah, but does it run Linux?

Re:Obligatory joke (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16029860)

Yeah, but does it run Linux?

Thank God, no!

Re:Obligatory joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16029902)

Thank God, no!


Why, what OS and web browser combo does he use?

Re:Obligatory joke (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030033)

Stupid, lame pathetic. Guess what, Solaris, OpenOffice, Firefox, Windows, none of those run Linux. Hardware runs Linux moron.

CSS = ACID? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16029843)

does this mean it passes the acid test?

Re:CSS = ACID? (5, Informative)

viniosity (592905) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029864)

I'm really curious to see what kind of CSS modifications I'll have to make to support IE7 vs. Firefox. There are a number of well known hacks for IE6 and it'll be interesting to see how people keep those in place without jeopardizing the layouts in IE7.

Breaks /. new discussion system (5, Informative)

psycln (937854) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029935)

IE7 RC1 makes more than enough white-space in the beta /. discussion system. http://img396.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ndsyn9.jp g [imageshack.us] my eyes hurt...

Re:Breaks /. new discussion system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16029976)

That is one fugly, cluttered mess of a UI. What's with the translucent window border,is there any point to that whatsoever?

Re:Breaks /. new discussion system (1)

binarybum (468664) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030192)

hmm, I believe that's the exclusive "baby-vomit" skin.

Re:Breaks /. new discussion system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030197)

The UI for Windows Vista is utterly horrible (I know you can switch it to classic... but classic sucks as well). They added transparency and gradients all over the place just for the sake of having them. After all this time in development the UI still looks terrible and inconsistent...

Re:CSS = ACID? (4, Informative)

lukas.mach (999732) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030015)

I'm quite sure it won't pass ACID2, but that doesn't matter - CSS support is still pretty good in MSIE 7 RC 1 and that's more that I hoped for. I just had to port quite complex CSS layout for MSIE 7 (used position:fixed hacks in MSIE 6, maxwidth emulation and whatnot) and all it took was to change one conditional comment (to ensure that these many MSIE-6-workarounds won't be applied to MSIE 7). Now I'm using exactly the same stylesheet for Mozilla, Opera and MSIE 7.

Underscore hacks won't do the trick for MSIE 7 (which is probably good thing), pages with xml declaration are rendered in standards mode (which will cause some minor trouble, mainly because of that boxmodel change).

Re:CSS = ACID? (4, Informative)

aymanh (892834) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030128)

Web developers can use conditional comments [quirksmode.org] to target a specific version of IE, and here is an article [positioniseverything.net] that goes into the details of what hacks are "supported" by IE7.

Supporting IE7 will require some extra work by webdevs, but it's doable even if code already contains hacks for previous versions of IE.

Re:CSS = ACID? (1)

kubevubin (906716) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029867)

From what I understand, their improvements in CSS rendering are rather limited. I don't think that it even comes close to passing the Acid Test, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.

Re:CSS = ACID? (1, Informative)

mr_stinky_britches (926212) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029881)

Firefox still doesn't pass that test...

Re:CSS = ACID? (5, Informative)

linuxci (3530) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029900)

Firefox 2.0 won't pass the Acid test because the rendering engine in 2.0 is based on the same gecko as 1.5 (1.5 uses Gecko 1.8 and 2.0 uses 1.8.1), however Firefox 3.0 should pass the acid test because a lot of work has been done on the rendering engine (Gecko 1.9).

Basically most of the changes in Firefox 2.0 will be in the frontend, 3.0 will have a lot of improvements to the backend.

However, 2.0's CSS support is vastly superior to that in IE7.

Re:CSS = ACID? (-1, Flamebait)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030023)

however Firefox 3.0 should pass the acid test because a lot of work has been done on the rendering engine (Gecko 1.9).

Yes, and Internet Explorer 8 should also pass the test because a lot of work is being done on the rendering engine (Trident VI).

Re:CSS = ACID? (4, Interesting)

linuxci (3530) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030040)

You can download nightly builds of Firefox from the trunk (branded as Minefield to indicate use at your own risk) so you can see exactly how Firefox 3.0 is progressing. As for IE8 we can't see the current status of that so who knows how much work is left to be done on IE8?

For updates on thr trunk (which will become Fx3.0) see The Burning Edge [squarefree.com]

Re:CSS = ACID? (5, Informative)

dvice_null (981029) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030161)

> Yes, and Internet Explorer 8 should also pass the test

Really? That is huge news. Do you have ANY proof for that?

About Firefox passing the ACID2 with version 3, here is a screenshot what it looks like in the reflow branch (branch where there is a lot of work done with the CSS support, which will at some point most likely be merged with the Firefox 3 trunk branch). That is why we bulieve that Firefox 3 will pass the ACID2:
http://www.nelchael.net/varia/fireflowfox.png [nelchael.net]
( For those of you who don't like clicking links or can't see images. There is a screenshot of Firefox browser, ACID2 page open and I see no errors with it. )

Re:CSS = ACID? (2, Insightful)

Jekler (626699) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030073)

It is absurd that it takes less time and money to design and build an unmanned vehicle to explore mars, launch the vehicle, and complete the mission, than it does to design and build a rendering engine which passes Acid2 (or is otherwise compliant with HTML 4.01, CSS1/2, and DOM Level 1). Nevermind CSS3, SVG, or any newer technology, it is shocking that after 9 years of development on the Gecko Engine, it's not even CSS1 compliant. It seems foolish to bother developing subsequent standards until foundational work is complete.

Re:CSS = ACID? (1)

daniil (775990) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030100)

It is absurd that it takes less time and money to design and build an unmanned vehicle to explore mars, launch the vehicle, and complete the mission, than it does to design and build a rendering engine which passes Acid2

Our experience in building space vehicles: 50 years.
Experience in building HTML rendering engines: ~15 years.

Re:CSS = ACID? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030138)

How did Opera pass Acid 2 then? It's just a case of weak standards and bad software design.

Re:CSS = ACID? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030208)

Don't forget that standards are not in Microsoft business interests -- that's why they went with the Windows' specific developments such as JScript and ActiveX.

It's not so much weak standards and bad design, as it is lack of interest.

Re:CSS = ACID? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030162)

If Mozilla had $820 million [wikipedia.org] and several hundred rocket scientists [nasa.gov] working full time and over time on only the Gecko engine for three years [cornell.edu] , then yeah, I think it might pass Acid2.

I'm not saying it's reasonable that it hasn't, I'm saying it's unreasonable to compare a bunch of cowboys that do stuff for fun with a few paid employees along with them to JPL making robots and sending them to Mars.

Re:CSS = ACID? (4, Insightful)

pe1chl (90186) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029915)

It is a step, but it is very questionable if it is a good thing to make a step when they are still so far of the target of rendering common CSS constructs that all other browsers render without problem.
(I do not mean the ACID2 test!)

Now we will have yet another browser to make special exceptions for, different from IE5 and IE6, and we still cannot feed IE7 the same CSS as Firefox, Opera or Konqueror.
That is a step, but is it the right direction? I don't know.

Re:CSS = ACID? (0)

jZnat (793348) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029933)

Since IE7 should be replacing all older installs (or we can assume for the sake of the children here), you can finally drop support for IE6 and below. If a user is using an old version of the browser, they can either update to IE7 or get a real web browser.

Re:CSS = ACID? (2, Insightful)

pe1chl (90186) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029978)

They cannot install IE7 if they aren't running XP SP2 or 2003 server.
It has always been possible to install another browser, but looking at the number of IE5 and 5.5 visits I still see, I think it will be 5 years before IE6 shows any sign of disappearing.

Re:CSS = ACID? (1)

linuxci (3530) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030048)

Best thing to do is make sure pages work in IE6 and earlier, but if they don't look as good or are lacking some non essential feature you can put a link to other browsers that do work better. As long as you give the use a choice and don't intentionally cripple them by locking them into one browser.

Re:CSS = ACID? (1)

masklinn (823351) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030156)

IE7 isn't compatible with Windows 2000, and I'm not even sure you can install it on Windows XP SP1. Remember, IE5.5 still isn't completely dead, and we're nearly 6 years after IE6 was released.

Drop support for IE6? Not so fast... (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030166)

You may be able to drop *browser-detection* for IE6, but unless you're using a (correct) DTD, IE7 will still pop into quirks mode, which is supposedly essentially unchanged from IE6, and will thus act 'badly'.

So, all you programmers who write crappy HTML, guess what - you finally have to learn proper HTML! :)

Also note: Users on Win 2000 or below won't be getting IE7. *shrug* Fug 'em, I say. Fug 'em up their stupid...well, you know the quote.

Re:CSS = ACID? (5, Informative)

linuxci (3530) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029873)

No, they said from the beginning that IE7 would not pass the ACID2 test. Maybe in a later release.

They neglected the browser for years (not the IE devs fault but management decision) so it'll take a long time to get upto speed with the rest.

One thing that we must make sure NEVER happens is that IE gets as dominant as it was pre-Firefox otherwise they'll just stop IE development again. It's happened once, it can just happen again. Fortunately, despite the hard work of the IE team, there's still a lot of benefits to be gained from using Firefox or Opera (or Safari, etc)

Re:CSS = ACID? (4, Insightful)

icepick72 (834363) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029983)

One thing that we must make sure NEVER happens is that IE gets as dominant as it was pre-Firefox otherwise they'll just stop IE development again

The popularity of IE7 cannot be stopped because it's bundled with Windows and made available through Windows Update web site which almost every Windows user frequents, knowningly or not. Therefore the browser doesn't have to be popular because it will be widely used regardless.
I've been a Firefox-only Windows user for years however if IE7 supports many of the features I like about Firefox, I will have no qualms using it instead. I want the Web, not a browser. The ACID tests are important for standards, but we know Microsoft usually doesn't adhere fully to standards that aren't their own, so it's no a surprise. With IE7 Microsoft seems to be adhering to the 80/20 rule -- in this case 80% of what the better brwosers have become with 20% of the effort expended. This is smart business practice despite the other aspects.
Microsoft has copied popular features introduced by other browsers (as they have done from each other). I know we're going to see less Firefox on Windows when IE7 is published to Windows update. Most users don't care for the ACID tests (only the developers). It's amazing the dominance the old IE browser still has even though Microsoft hasn't updated it in years. It's inevitable that IE7 will make big wave and grab back a large % of browser share with its copied features.

Re:CSS = ACID? (1)

Columcille (88542) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030211)

One thing that we must make sure NEVER happens is that IE gets as dominant as it was pre-Firefox

Last I checked IE is still pretty dominant. I think we can say/see that Firefox has put some pressure on Microsoft, but MS still has what, 90% of the browser market?

Re:CSS = ACID? (1)

in_repose (985442) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029889)

IIRC, Firefox didn't pass the "Acid Test"..

Re:CSS = ACID? (1)

icepick72 (834363) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029998)

Yes, try the acid test here [webstandards.org] . Indeed my Firefox won't pass. I think it's not fair to hold Microsoft to the ACID test when most of our other browsers won't render it. It doesn't represent a disadvantage of IE over other browsers (except the small group that can support it)

Who the fuck cares about CSS? (2, Interesting)

daniil (775990) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030034)

All the reviews I've read have pointed out that IE7's interface is way nicer than that of Firefox -- even in first betas. The default theme that comes with Firefox looks awfully outdated. Now, you may say that it doesn't matter because hey, there's all these themes and extensions you can install, but the truth is, not many people use themes (even the most popular ones only have at most a hundred thousand downloads) it will take an ordinary person only one look at IE7 before they dump Firefox. I'm very sorry to tell you this but all the technical things don't even matter -- what matters is that from what I've heard and read, IE7 is much easier to use than Firefox and it will be the way to go for the majority of Internet users.

Re:Who the fuck cares about CSS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030169)

popular ones only have at most a hundred thousand downloads

FYI: Those are weekly numbers. Total downloads are in the millions. Still a negligible percentage, but not quite as low as you make it look.

Re:Who the fuck cares about CSS? (4, Insightful)

WhiteWolf666 (145211) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030191)

I actually haven't been reading that at all.

Most of the reviews I've read chide MS for creating an interface that looks far, far different than anything else in the OS.

The average person does NOT like MS's new interface design. For the most part, there is a huge majority of people who run XP in "classic" mode, enjoying all applications in a one-size-fits all, boxy, ugly as sin, tan/grey everything Windows 2000-style interface. In particular, placing tabs above the menu bar seems to incite hatred; people find it confusing.

Joe Blow doesn't like UI changes; even if they could potentially increase efficency. The only people that are really moved by whiz-bang UIs are young gamers and UI engineers.

Re:Who the fuck cares about CSS? (2, Insightful)

amliebsch (724858) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030206)

For the most part, there is a huge majority of people who run XP in "classic" mode, enjoying all applications in a one-size-fits all, boxy, ugly as sin, tan/grey everything Windows 2000-style interface.

You are claiming that the "huge majority" of people who use Windows XP run in "classic" mode. What is your source for this?

Re:CSS = ACID? (1)

insomniac8400 (590226) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030068)

acid test = retard doesn't know how to code a page correctly so were trying to see if a browser will display code based on the programmers intentions. It's stupid, and any browser that renders it correctly is flawed.

Re:CSS = ACID? (2, Informative)

WhiteWolf666 (145211) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030212)

The ACID test is not a CSS compliance test. It's more like a CSS torture test.

IIRC, Konqueror and a heavily patched Webkit (they share a similar code base, of course) are the only browsers that pass ACID 2.0 . Oh, and Opera, of course; but that's because Opera tends to be light years ahead in terms of rendering engine design (I do dislike the Opera UI, though). Even Opera on mobile devices passes.

Take a look at the results here [howtocreate.co.uk] . Look at the screenshots. Firefox fails the test, but it's pretty close. IE7 is miles and miles away. But either way, the test is not terribly relevant; ACID is a test of invalid CSS, to see how the browser handles broken code. I think that in terms of standards, a CSS compliance test is more relevant. Not that IE does well there, either.

FINISHED?! (2, Insightful)

Desolator144 (999643) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029851)

I don't think they should be allowed to call it finished. They'll probably rewrite most of it in patches over the next few years like IE6. At least it has better CSS support. And now it works better with adware applications and maybe they finally added support for the "fixed" div style so we can all get attacked by screen covering super ads that can't be removed.

Re:FINISHED?! (5, Informative)

linuxci (3530) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029887)

Apparently they've already written the roadmap for the next two versions of IE (probably called 7.5 and 8.0) so they're probably going to just make security patches for 7.0 and then fix bugs, improve compliance and add features in the future releases.

Not much as been said on these future releases yet except that they're hard at work on them.

Re:FINISHED?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16029960)

why did I read the headline as "Internet Exploder 7 RC1 Released"... finished or not I am using Firefox, thank you

Re:FINISHED?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030064)

Add this to the wishlist: Plugins should respect z-ordering. As it is, even in IE7, Plugins always show on top of everything else. Other browsers do it right, as usual.

Other releases (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16029852)

Uhhh, the IE release candidate was out a week ago? Of real interest to slashdotters are:

IronPython 1.0 Release Candidate 2 - out today
Microsoft Robotics Studio (rather incredible...includes simulation environment) - http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?fa milyid=66d1363e-36a4-46be-ad36-01bcfbfb4969&displa ylang=en [microsoft.com]

Can I get these on the front page too?

Thanks,
Microsoft Marketing Department

backwards compatibility (2, Insightful)

legoburner (702695) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029857)

From people who have been using IE7 betas/RCs, how does it handle backwards compatibility? If someone is detecting IE and then generating different javascript to get around IE6 glitches, will they now need to test for IE6 or below /and/ IE7 or above to handle the old glitches and the non-glitchy IE or do glitch workarounds not affect the output of IE7?

Re:backwards compatibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16029872)

Really, who cares what people who can't code to standards will have to do? They've made their beds, now they can fucking lay in them.

Re:backwards compatibility (0, Redundant)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029959)

Really, who cares what people who can't code to standards will have to do? They've made their beds, now they can fucking lay in them.
That's written trollishly, but it's exactly right. The biggest problem with Internet Explorer (aside from security vulns) has been its philosophy of accepting badly written HTML. Throw something with half a dozen missing (or out of order) </TD>s, </TR>s and </TABLE>s at IE, and it will go "sure, sure I know what you meant" and render it SOMEHOW, thus obviating the need for people to actually write correct HTML. Throw the same code at one of the Gecko browsers, and nothing gets rendered, or gets rendered badly. And this is where the author of the code invariably growls "fucking Netscape"; eventually they just stop trying to make their code work on anything but IE. I haven't tried IE7 (and have no intention), but I'd be curious if it still behaves this way.

Re:backwards compatibility (1)

linuxci (3530) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029990)

Yes it still behaves that way, it's basically an improved version of the IE6 engine, better CSS support, but nowhere near the level of their competitors.

I wonder if they will ever reach the level of their competitors without doing a total rewrite of their rendering engine. As we seen from Mozilla rewriting a rendering engine takes time, the gecko engine now used by Firefox debuted in Netscape 6, it took many years to get into shape.

Re:backwards compatibility (5, Insightful)

pe1chl (90186) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029903)

The site at work (http://www.uw.nl/) outputs standard html/css to everyone, and uses "IE conditional comments" to feed IE5 and IE6 specialized CSS items to work around their bugs.
A workaround sheet for IE7 has not yet been written, but it is very apparent (at least in beta3) that it is not up to the quality in standard CSS handling that the other browsers (Opera, Firefox, Konqueror) are. There are still positioning and stacking bugs.

I hope they fix them before release, but I'm afraid they won't. So this will introduce yet another class of broken browser workarounds: not as broken as IE6, but still broken.

Web developers have it backwards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16029925)

The correct way to handle this is to remove the conditionals and let MSIE users harass their vendor about the buggy sub-standard software they supplied. That's how it works for every other piece of software, why should IE be any different?

Re:Web developers have it backwards (2, Insightful)

thelost (808451) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029964)

because most people use internet explorer and if websites don't work in it it won't me MS they hassle, but the website designers. Designers (I'm one of them) know which side their bread is buttered on, we have to put these hacks in place because at the least clients expect sites we design for them to work in IE. They often might not know that there are different browsers or that websites render differently depending on which browser you view them with.

So in an ideal world, designers would drop tools and say fuck no, i'm not coding another box model hack till MS fix this, however MS are under *no* obligation to make IE work unfortunately. Also, to most peoples standards IE *does* work well enough unfortunately.

Re:Web developers have it backwards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030045)

MS are under *no* obligation to make IE work unfortunately

Nobody is under any obligation to use IE or make their site work with it.



This site meets WCAG priority 2 and validates as XHTML 1.0 and CSS level 2. If your browser does not render this site properly, please either report the problems directly to the vendor or download an alternative browser.


IE is broken and is not fixed by breaking pages to compensate.

Re:Web developers have it backwards (1)

Mike Savior (802573) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030107)

because most people use internet explorer and if websites don't work in it it won't me MS they hassle, but the website designers. Designers (I'm one of them) know which side their bread is buttered on, we have to put these hacks in place because at the least clients expect sites we design for them to work in IE. They often might not know that there are different browsers or that websites render differently depending on which browser you view them with.


That may be the case, but wouldn't it make more sense to follow the same direction as a designer, as another company that followed a standard would? For instance, I use a universally standard type of screw, or bolt, that is designed to work in every other wrench or screwdriver that followed the standard, to create a piece of machinery. Would I be to blame when a user contacts me in complaint saying that their faulty screwdriver/wrench that doesn't exactly follow my standard screw, but says it does, produces poor repair results or breakage with my machine? For all intents and purposes I may be required by law to replace said part that broke -due- to the faulty screwdriver, but I am most certainly not to blame for it, as long as I installed it properly, and used the right piece to begin with, and I'd make that clear upon review for the malfunction. Perhaps I'm wrong?

Re:Web developers have it backwards (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029974)

The correct way to handle this is to remove the conditionals and let MSIE users harass their vendor about the buggy sub-standard software they supplied. That's how it works for every other piece of software, why should IE be any different?

No one hangs around long enough to give a damn about why your site doesn't render properly.
There is always another just one click way.

Re:Web developers have it backwards (2, Insightful)

gregOfTheWeb (398142) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030061)

Damn that's the truth. Who cares about standards in the marketplace. satisfy the CUSTOMER! A developer should develop against IE and make it compatible with FF. Why would you possibly do it otherwise with FF having a market share between 10-20% depending on which report you look at.

To do the reverse, develop for FF and make it compatible with IE, is elitist and foolish and wastefull.

Re:Web developers have it backwards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030121)

Firefox is the better development platform. It supports the webauthor with several diagnostic tools. Its rendering engine is more predictable and powerful than the IE rendering engine. It's closer to the standard, so it's more likely that you end up with a site that needs no extra work to be compatible with Konqueror (Linux) and Safari (Mac). There are scripts which correct many of the problems caused by misfeatures in IE6, so those can be corrected with little extra work (but at the cost of additional bandwidth usage for retarded webbrowsers). The most important reason however is that, in startling contrast to the Microsoft tradition, IE is not a stable platform and never has been. Every single IE version renders core elements of HTML and CSS differently. That would be absolutely acceptable if the differences were the result of correcting the rendering towards the standards, but sadly that isn't the case.

Re:Web developers have it backwards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030122)

To do the reverse, develop for FF and make it compatible with IE, is elitist and foolish and wastefull.

Rubbish, a web page should display on any browser and there are many. IE is a complete trainwreck. If Microsoft didn't bundle it, few people would be using it.

Re:Web developers have it backwards (2, Interesting)

reanjr (588767) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030143)

I totally disagree. I design for Opera first, dropping in Dean Edward's IE7 scripts with a single conditional comment (that is standards compliant in every other browser as a comment), and rarely have to make any updates for IE. I usually make a minimal number of adjustments to get things to look right in FF and (depending on the site), Safari. Sometimes I don't have the time to make things look perfect in FF and Safari, but that's not too big a deal. The site still renders in a usable format, it's just the exact vision of what I had in mind.

The only thing I really spend any time on cross-browser support is with the script. I admit, alot of this has to do with the fact that I almost never use ecma/javascript (besides Dean Edward's IE7 scripts), so I am not up to date on the differences. This is the major place I would like to see updates made to IE.

Re:Web developers have it backwards (1)

pe1chl (90186) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029997)

Because visitors don't know the difference between bugs in the software they use, and problems with the website they visit.
So when they have visited 10 sites that displayed ok, then visit your site and it is a mess, it must be a problem of your site.

Now, this may change with IE7. There will be a lot of sites that people who newly installed IE7 will visit, and will render incorrectly.
That may wake up some people.

It is probably because of this that Microsoft does not allow you to install IE6 and 7 alongside. You would be able to compare. That is unwanted, because it would show up problems that they prefer to deny.
But, you can still install Firefox and Opera and compare with those...

Re:backwards compatibility (1)

eggoeater (704775) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030001)

I do a lot of Visual Studio programming (both desktop/server and Web) and I was concerned that IE-Beta might break some of the integrated debugging features with Studio. So far it hasn't been a problem.

Only once did I have a problem: I ran the debugger and then immediately clicked on an existing IE window. It usually opens a whole new IE window (vs a new tab in an existing IE window), but that one time it didn't do anything. I stopped and restarted the debugger and it worked fine.

In Windows Vista Build 5536? (1)

kubevubin (906716) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029859)

If this is the version of IE that's in Build 5536, then I must say that I'm surprised that they haven't made any performance improvements to it. It's still a step up from IE6 in terms of security and whatnot, but it's absolute torture trying to use this browser when you're used to the speed and response time that Opera offers.

Re:In Windows Vista Build 5536? (4, Informative)

linuxci (3530) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029940)

This is not the same IE build as in the latest Vista build. This release only works in XP. Actually the versions of IE in XP and Vista are not exactly the same. Some of this they blame on the underlying OS but most likely it's just to make vista more attractive.

IE for Vista was going to be named IE7+ [msdn.com] and XP simply IE7, however they scrapped that naming convention.

Also another slight name change, on both platforms it's no longer "Microsoft Internet Explorer" it's now "Windows Internet Explorer".

Re:In Windows Vista Build 5536? (1)

psycln (937854) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029988)

Actually the versions of IE in XP and Vista are not exactly the same.

They are actually using the same "mshtml.dll" (IE7+ build number matches Vista build, apart from that they are identical). The only diff - i think - is in GUI stuff

Re:In Windows Vista Build 5536? (1)

linuxci (3530) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030007)

Not just GUI some of the security related features too, but yes, mshtml (the rendering engine) should be the same on XP and vista

Check out Lockheed's wrongdoing (0, Offtopic)

applix7 (998238) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029862)

The fun is here: http://malfy.org/ [malfy.org]

Re:Check out Lockheed's wrongdoing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030112)

What a funny little website. Edited by your local community college volunteers?

Bug #1 (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16029865)

all we did was listen to your feedback, fix bugs that you reported, and make final adjustments to our CSS support.

It's still MSIE though isn't it fuckface?

Really? (3, Insightful)

also-rr (980579) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029868)

listen to your feedback

So this version will actually let me punch internet trolls in the face remotley?

I suppose you could say that if they are using Internet Explorer no further punishment is really necessary. Tell you what, I'll meet you half way - if it's detected that Flash is installed the face-punching module can be turned off and replaced with an endless loop of Joanna Smith's Video Blog Installment 19 (My Trip To Blackpool) instead. Do we have a deal?

On a related note in a tainted and statistically useless sample (ie, mostly Slashdot users) even Mac users can be tempted from Safari [revis.co.uk] it seems - so why everyone assumes that on the release of IE 7 Firefox market share is going to die I have no idea.

Re:Really? (3, Informative)

linuxci (3530) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029913)

On a related note in a tainted and statistically useless sample (ie, mostly Slashdot users) even Mac users can be tempted from Safari it seems - so why everyone assumes that on the release of IE 7 Firefox market share is going to die I have no idea.

I definitely don't think IE7 will significantly hurt Firefox usage. Look at it this way:

  • IE7 is not available for Win2000 or earlier (or and non-Win OS)
  • IE7 user interface is totally non-standard on XP
  • IE7's installation is more of a hassle than Firefox - it's a larger download, needs rebooting and takes longer

Re:Really? (4, Informative)

rts008 (812749) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029963)

You left out the part where WGA gets installed automagically during the IE7 install, even if you uncheck the box for "check for updates" at the beginning of the install.

I watched that happen on one of my boxes at home- unplugged the cat5, and the install claimed it couldnt finish without internet connection. And that's after you go through the validation process just so you can download IE7 from MS.

Be warned- if you don't want WGA, be careful trying to install IE7.

Re:Really? (1)

aymanh (892834) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029977)

I agree, IE7 market share will be mainly previous IE6 users, when IE6 was released, its market share climbed up and IE5's dropped down at approximately the same rate [w3schools.com] . IE7 market share will be mainly previous IE6 users. Firefox users will usually stick to it, even that IE7 features tabs support, Firefox still has a lot to offer, mainly the wide range of extensions available.

Re:Really? (2, Interesting)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030019)

I definitely think IE7 will significantly hurt Firefox usage. Look at it this way:

  • IE7 will come down automatic update. Eventually it'll come shipped with computers.
    • IE7 is ripping off several FireFox features (tabs, etc.), thus making FF feel more like a pain in the butt to download for the average user since the differences won't be as large.
      • Microsoft actually markets their product.

Re:Really? (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030185)

> So this version will actually let me punch internet trolls in the face remotley?

I'm sorry, but that would infringe on my intellectual property - the "Remote Bitch Slap Protocol", or RBSP/IP, which I came up with in 1994.

Legacy OS only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16029875)

Looks as if it is only available for legacy operating systems. Do they plan to compete with Firefox and offer a version for Linux or OSX?

what (3, Informative)

Bizzeh (851225) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029877)

welcome to last weeks news.

it crashes (0, Flamebait)

tyrnight (633534) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029904)

I tried it and yes it crashes.. every time I click on a past link on the address bar.. IT SUCKS ASS sorry microsoft.. get your shit right.. and you wonder why we are tempted at using linux.. even though it crashes.. just not as much as microsoft software..

IE & CSS (1)

trezor (555230) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029907)

"and make final adjustments to our CSS support"

Does that mean that they make it fundamentally broken and still don't handle the box model correctly?

Re:IE & CSS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030043)

IE has handled the box model correctly for YEARS, assuming you feed it the right doctype.

CSS Changes for IE7 (4, Informative)

aymanh (892834) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029917)

I couldn't find links to this page in the summary or IE7 blog entry, so I'm posting it here as I believe many would be interested in it: List of CSS changes in IE7 [msdn.com] .

It's mostly bug fixes, notable new features are enabling :hover for all elements, implementing position: fixed, PNG transparency support, and min/max width/height.

display: table-cell (1)

StonedRat (837378) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029918)

It still does not support this CSS propery. Which in my opinion would be extreamly useful for designing layouts.

Although it does now allow position: fixed; and to specify, left: 10%; right: 10%; top: 10%; bottom: 10%; to make things centered easily.

well (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16029928)

did it pass the acid test?

Blink Support? (4, Funny)

Quintios (594318) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029931)

It still pisses me off that IE doesn't support the BLINK tag. What a bunch of crap, MS. :\

Re:Blink Support? (1)

aymanh (892834) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030017)

Yeah, poor IE users will never be able to see The Page of The Damned [goer.org] in all its glory.

Source [goer.org]

Re:Blink Support? (1)

larien (5608) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030114)

Bizarrely, it's not the worst page I've ever seen on the internet...

Re:Blink Support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030205)

On MySpace, that site'd be par for the course.

Still Broken With Exponent CMS (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16029932)

Someone tell Microsoft that thousands of us use open source content management systems like Exponent CMS. Using IE 7 is a study in patience, if not masochism. It takes nearly a minute to load ANY page on our site.

This needs to be fixed ASAP.

PNG gamma handling is still wrong (4, Informative)

Glenn R-P (83561) | more than 7 years ago | (#16029944)

PNG files with gamma=1/2.2 are still rendered differently from PNG files with the sRGB chunk
and from untagged images. See http://pmt.sf.net/gamma_test [sf.net] where the 1/2.2 patches
should match and the 1/1.96 patches should be lighter (use Firefox or almost any other
browser to see how the page should be rendered).

I take it MS do not use libpng? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030065)

Glenn, what would be wrong with having APNG served with an image mime type (temporarily until Microsoft manage to support the format 20 years time)? According to Hixie (and I disagree), mime is dead anyway.

Re:I take it MS do not use libpng? (1)

Glenn R-P (83561) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030159)


APNG should be served with a video mime type since it is animation (so should ani-gif but that's
another problem). Better yet there should be an "animation" mime type. Since IE8 or whatever would probably use the PNG renderer for APNG, the gamma would probably still be wrong.

If your suggestion is to use image/png to convey APNGs because IE7-8-9 are only going to see the base PNG and not the animation, then from the IE perspective it is fine but from the perspective of all the browsers that do support APNG it would be incorrect.

Re:I take it MS do not use libpng? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16030210)


Since IE8 or whatever would probably use the PNG renderer for APNG, the gamma would probably still be wrong.
Is this Microsofts own image lib?

My question about APNG was if you thought it reasonable to serve as image/png instead of video/x-apng until APNG renderers are widely deployed? I know it became a contentious issue with the bizarre removal of MNG from moz trunk but I want lossless raster animation before SVG or canvas. Is APNG effectively dead now?

Can't customize the toolbar (5, Interesting)

bogie (31020) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030055)

I still can't believe MS won't allow you to move some of the features around, notably the home button. It is unbeliveable awkward to go to the top left to go back and forward and then have to move way down and right to get to the home page button. You want to put all of those other little buttons off to the bottom right? Fine. But move the fucking home button back next to the navigation arrows where it is supposed to go. Oh and smart move to hide the file menu and all the other menus. Nobody uses those menus anyway.

Pluses?

Tabbed browing - Welcome to the 90s.
Shrink to fit printing - Gee why would we need that? I like having 15% of every page I print cut off.
RSS Feeds - Does anyone even use this?
Integrated Search - About time.

Overall I think this is the browser that MS should have released 3-4 years ago. It is better than IE 6 in pretty much every way but I don't see Opera or Firefox users coming back anytime soon. I know that MS sees these changes as a big deal but I honestly expected more from a company that spends $1 Billion+ on R&D per year. With all of that money and talent the best they could do is copy features that other browsers have had for years and years? Talk about a total lack of innovation.

Re:Can't customize the toolbar (1)

Chaffar (670874) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030126)

I honestly expected more from a company that spends $1 Billion+ on R&D per year. With all of that money and talent the best they could do is copy features that other browsers have had for years and years?
It's Microsoft's tried-and-tested development model... it's worked for them from the mid 80's so why stop now ? :)

Re:Can't customize the toolbar (2, Funny)

protohiro1 (590732) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030131)

Minuses...it thrashes the layout on slashdot. I don't know why, but it does. I guess we are all going to be working on IE7 fixed for the next year...

Re:Can't customize the toolbar (2, Insightful)

oyenstikker (536040) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030204)

"It is better than IE 6 in pretty much every way"

What?! User interface is non-standard and sucks. The CSS support is different but not right, so correct CSS is broken AND IE6 hacked CSS is broken. What way is it better in? Tabs. Thats one way, not pretty much every way.

IE7 RC1 has been out for weeks? (0, Redundant)

insomniac8400 (590226) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030075)

Why does this article IE7, when the RC1 version has been out for a while.

Beta is better (1)

dabbaking (843108) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030115)

I think that Microsoft screwed this up. I heard from a bunch of people that RC1 crashes a lot more. Leave it up to ms to make a beta more stable than a rc.

Can a release candidate be released then? (2, Interesting)

niceone (992278) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030176)

Can a release candidate be released then? I just seems plain wrong to me.

I have a problem with IE7 (0, Redundant)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 7 years ago | (#16030195)

My problem is... I really like IE6 with all it's problems. I dislike Opera and Firefox. But now with IE7 it seems that there are no alternative to tabbed browsers. I really freaking hate tabs. I find them to be an abbomination and a real annoyance. Well, I need to wait for some IE7 warapper browser without tabs I guess...
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...