Details of IE7 Begin to Emerge
..now that Firefox has shown them what people really want.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005 by tjesterb | Discussion: Internet
Microsoft Watch has a story with the emerging details of Microsoft's IE7 beta.
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1776290,00.asp
Code-named "Rincon" features are supposed to include: tabbed browsing, native PNG support,and improved security, including possible integration with the new MS Anti-Spyware.
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,1776290,00.asp
Code-named "Rincon" features are supposed to include: tabbed browsing, native PNG support,and improved security, including possible integration with the new MS Anti-Spyware.
 |
|
Page 2 of 3 | |
|
|---|
Adam Najmanowicz
Reply #22 Thursday, March 17, 2005 2:44 PM
Reply #22 Thursday, March 17, 2005 2:44 PM
Bebi, calling bulletproofness a joke is not really a smart thing to say.
I believe our web people have quite an oposite experiences with MSHTML rendering and Gecko.
Oh, and IE is a standard. it's W3C that's not IE compliant
I believe our web people have quite an oposite experiences with MSHTML rendering and Gecko.
Oh, and IE is a standard. it's W3C that's not IE compliant
kona0197
Reply #23 Thursday, March 17, 2005 3:06 PM
Maxthon has tabbed browsing and is IE based. Anyhow what about us people who would rather have 5 open IE's instead of useing tabbed browsing? I can't stand tabbed browsing.
Reply #23 Thursday, March 17, 2005 3:06 PM
| IE doesn't have tabbed browsing. Many people like this feature. Why should I have 5 open IE's instead of just one Firefox? |
Maxthon has tabbed browsing and is IE based. Anyhow what about us people who would rather have 5 open IE's instead of useing tabbed browsing? I can't stand tabbed browsing.
Island Dog
Reply #24 Thursday, March 17, 2005 3:22 PM
I use Maxthon also, but it still doesn't not compare to Firefox. It renders the pages much slower than Firefox.
We all know you don't like tabbed browsing, but many more people do.
I find it interesting that you want to get rid of Windows in favor of Linux, but defend IE all day.
Reply #24 Thursday, March 17, 2005 3:22 PM
| Maxthon has tabbed browsing and is IE based. Anyhow what about us people who would rather have 5 open IE's instead of useing tabbed browsing? I can't stand tabbed browsing. |
I use Maxthon also, but it still doesn't not compare to Firefox. It renders the pages much slower than Firefox.
We all know you don't like tabbed browsing, but many more people do.
I find it interesting that you want to get rid of Windows in favor of Linux, but defend IE all day.
kona0197
Reply #25 Thursday, March 17, 2005 3:49 PM
Reply #25 Thursday, March 17, 2005 3:49 PM
Well Island Dog the reason I wanted to switch is two fold. Firstly becuse M$ says my XP key is not legal. I have to clue why they say that. And then M$ said no more updates to pirated copyies (or those they THINK are pirated) later this year. Secondly I wanted to switch to Linux because I thought learning a different OS would be cool. I was wrong. Linux is a headache.
Why do I defend IE? Because for me it's faster and I believe it to be superior. I am just waiting for a big security hole or big virus to befall Firefox so I can sit back and laugh as I type "I told you so. Now who wants to say FF is as secure as you thought?"
Why do I defend IE? Because for me it's faster and I believe it to be superior. I am just waiting for a big security hole or big virus to befall Firefox so I can sit back and laugh as I type "I told you so. Now who wants to say FF is as secure as you thought?"
Dark-Star
Reply #26 Thursday, March 17, 2005 4:03 PM
Reply #26 Thursday, March 17, 2005 4:03 PM
Native PNG Support! SWEEEEEEEEEEEET -- it's about time!
paxx
Reply #27 Thursday, March 17, 2005 4:04 PM
Reply #27 Thursday, March 17, 2005 4:04 PM
Adam, I don't know why you specified that tech savy people mostly have XP. It has little to do with the fact that IE7 won't be available for people running pre-XP versoins of Windows. Tech savy or not, these people are going to find out that they have an outdated browser and that the newer version won't work on their machine. Chances are number of these are going to switch to a modern browser that works on their machine.
Also, I know a lot of non-tech people who are currently using Firefox (probably cause they have a tech-savy friend of family who told them to. LOL), and you seem to forget Windows 2000. On the site where I got the 64% of XP users stat, 20% of the remaining were using Windows 2000. A LOT of techs I know actually use Windows 2000 because they think XP is just 2000 with extra useless fluff. I personaly like the fluff, but quite a few techies don't.
Also, I know a lot of non-tech people who are currently using Firefox (probably cause they have a tech-savy friend of family who told them to. LOL), and you seem to forget Windows 2000. On the site where I got the 64% of XP users stat, 20% of the remaining were using Windows 2000. A LOT of techs I know actually use Windows 2000 because they think XP is just 2000 with extra useless fluff. I personaly like the fluff, but quite a few techies don't.
Island Dog
Reply #28 Thursday, March 17, 2005 4:12 PM
I know Firefox isn't completely secure. No software is.
But the problems with IE have been mounting and they are the basis for many security flaws. IE is outdated software that maybe will improve with version 7, although I wouldn't count on it. I have tried many browsers, Firefox, Opera, etc., and IE is almost always at the bottom of the list.
Reply #28 Thursday, March 17, 2005 4:12 PM
| Why do I defend IE? Because for me it's faster and I believe it to be superior. I am just waiting for a big security hole or big virus to befall Firefox so I can sit back and laugh as I type "I told you so. Now who wants to say FF is as secure as you thought?" |
I know Firefox isn't completely secure. No software is.
But the problems with IE have been mounting and they are the basis for many security flaws. IE is outdated software that maybe will improve with version 7, although I wouldn't count on it. I have tried many browsers, Firefox, Opera, etc., and IE is almost always at the bottom of the list.
Adam Najmanowicz
Reply #29 Thursday, March 17, 2005 11:39 PM
Reply #29 Thursday, March 17, 2005 11:39 PM
paxx, the conclusion was based on the assumption that, most tech savy people updated within the last 3 years or got a newer OS "the other way". The first gtroup will probably get it with the next service pack, the other group is... well... pretty resourceful. I agree though that the stats may differ based on which sites they were measured at and Wincusromize is likely to get more XP optimistic stats.
For the moment I'm enjoying Firefox. I spend 95% of my browsing time either in Firefox or in Blog Navigator (reasing various RSS feeds). Hardly ever use plain IE.
One way or another I believe the best browser wins and I am pretty sure MS can afford one
For the moment I'm enjoying Firefox. I spend 95% of my browsing time either in Firefox or in Blog Navigator (reasing various RSS feeds). Hardly ever use plain IE.
One way or another I believe the best browser wins and I am pretty sure MS can afford one
paxx
Reply #31 Friday, March 18, 2005 12:08 PM
Reply #31 Friday, March 18, 2005 12:08 PM
Well, that's where I think there is a problem. It shouldn't be about "winning". There should be plenty of room for everybody in this market. But it's impossible as long as companies refuse to implement the standards set forth by the industry (W3C). Heck! That's what HTML is supposed to be for! What's the use of even using HTML if one company is going to decide on what is standard and what is not? Why don't we just make web pages in .doc format, and let people use Word to read the information! HTML was invented specifically so information can be viewed identically by any browser on any machine...
Adam Najmanowicz
Reply #32 Friday, March 18, 2005 3:31 PM
Reply #32 Friday, March 18, 2005 3:31 PM
Let me elaborate. We're talking competing products. Any given user will not be browsing the Internet all the time with 2 browsers at once, therefore only one is going to be used most of the time by the user and the one is "the winner". Winner = being used by people who do not use them for religious reasons. Because clearly both of them are not making money strictly from selling the browser that's the only field they really compete. Whenever we summon statistics there is always a winner and a loser.
Any personf will refuse to synchronize their bookmarks every time they add a new one, and one browsing history is enough mess to find a page they saw yesterday and would like to revisit today. So there can only be one main browser for a person and this browser is the winner.
As to the standards, as stated before, IE is the de facto standard. It's W3C that's not IE compliant. If ~90% use IE then there is no point in setting standards that conflict with the majority of the clients that they with to standardize. Comply or fade away - you won't be missed. And judging by what I see that's pretty much what Firefox has done - they complied and extended upon. They mimick IE in many places which is good for them. Incidentally the moment they started doing that, was the moment they starting to gain market share. The only thing that counts is the user experience. Should I have a better experience with IE7 than Firefox 1.what.ever I am simply going to switch back. Should Firefox excell in the task, so be it. I really do not care what laber the browser has.
paxx
Reply #33 Friday, March 18, 2005 4:54 PM
Actually, that is precisely what got me interested in Netscape 8. Using just one browser, you can switch on the fly from the Firefox engine to the IE engine. You can set specific sites to use IE and others to use Firefox, and you go from one to the other without even realising you do. Quite a powerful feature. But for now it's still beta and quite unstable, had to revert back to Firefox. But will most definately give Netscape 8 another shot on the next beta.
As for Microsoft being the standard, why don't we just type out sites in Word and make MS Word the defacto Web standard?
Reply #33 Friday, March 18, 2005 4:54 PM
| Any given user will not be browsing the Internet all the time with 2 browsers at once |
Actually, that is precisely what got me interested in Netscape 8. Using just one browser, you can switch on the fly from the Firefox engine to the IE engine. You can set specific sites to use IE and others to use Firefox, and you go from one to the other without even realising you do. Quite a powerful feature. But for now it's still beta and quite unstable, had to revert back to Firefox. But will most definately give Netscape 8 another shot on the next beta.
As for Microsoft being the standard, why don't we just type out sites in Word and make MS Word the defacto Web standard?
tjesterb
Reply #34 Friday, March 18, 2005 5:36 PM
Sorry, Skinstudio, but I can't agree with one corporation setting the standard for everyone.
I understand the point you're making, in some ways MS has set the standard just by holding almost 100% market share. But that shouldn't mean that there should be no other standard set.
Microsoft is a for-profit corporation. They develop and sell Operating systems and software (browsers included) with the end goal of making money. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. That should NOT mean that they get to set the standards for use and development of the web, operating systems, or software.
Should Stardock get to set the standards for how all desktop enhancements work?
Should Ford/Chevrolet/Chrysler/(insert favorite suto manufacturer) get to set the standards for how roads are built?
Reply #34 Friday, March 18, 2005 5:36 PM
| IE is the de facto standard. It's W3C that's not IE compliant. |
Sorry, Skinstudio, but I can't agree with one corporation setting the standard for everyone.
I understand the point you're making, in some ways MS has set the standard just by holding almost 100% market share. But that shouldn't mean that there should be no other standard set.
Microsoft is a for-profit corporation. They develop and sell Operating systems and software (browsers included) with the end goal of making money. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. That should NOT mean that they get to set the standards for use and development of the web, operating systems, or software.
Should Stardock get to set the standards for how all desktop enhancements work?
Should Ford/Chevrolet/Chrysler/(insert favorite suto manufacturer) get to set the standards for how roads are built?
Adam Najmanowicz
Reply #35 Friday, March 18, 2005 6:07 PM
Reply #35 Friday, March 18, 2005 6:07 PM
paxx, that only proves my point, you wanted to use one browser instead of two.
As to the Word being a standard, it's not going to happen as Word is not free or provided with the operating system, but i have no problem with RTF/Wordpad being so as long as it comes with all the functionality DHTML can provide. Actually that's exactly the case with Macromedia Flash, we have whole sites built with it, and somehow it's OK with everybody.
tjesterb, oh there should be standards, it's just that as long as they are not implemented in IE they're pretty meaningless. Now Microsoft has declared increased standard compliance in IE7 and I'm really glad to hear that, but as long as IE7 is not dominating the userbase along with the other CSS 2/3 compliant browsers they simply continue to be meaningless.
As to the Word being a standard, it's not going to happen as Word is not free or provided with the operating system, but i have no problem with RTF/Wordpad being so as long as it comes with all the functionality DHTML can provide. Actually that's exactly the case with Macromedia Flash, we have whole sites built with it, and somehow it's OK with everybody.
tjesterb, oh there should be standards, it's just that as long as they are not implemented in IE they're pretty meaningless. Now Microsoft has declared increased standard compliance in IE7 and I'm really glad to hear that, but as long as IE7 is not dominating the userbase along with the other CSS 2/3 compliant browsers they simply continue to be meaningless.
paxx
Reply #36 Friday, March 18, 2005 6:13 PM
Reply #36 Friday, March 18, 2005 6:13 PM
SkinStudio, Word may not be free but Word Viewer is free. As long as you just want to view .doc files, it works fine. So, since Word can do pretty nifty things (that most people never use), there you go.
As for Flash, actually, the swf format is now an open format.
As for Flash, actually, the swf format is now an open format.
Adam Najmanowicz
Reply #37 Friday, March 18, 2005 6:19 PM
Reply #37 Friday, March 18, 2005 6:19 PM
That's ok. Actually I can use OpenOffice to create the Doc's I need let's do that.
So what sites can I browse in Word Viewer?
So what sites can I browse in Word Viewer?
tjesterb
Reply #38 Friday, March 18, 2005 7:10 PM
Reply #38 Friday, March 18, 2005 7:10 PM
I meant to add more to my previous post, but had to leave rather quickly to help out a friend. Now that I read it, I guess I stated my point in what I had .
Anyway, I really don't want this to turn into the thousandth FF-vs-IE debate. I', a pretty devoted FF user, but if IE7 ends up being a better product for my needs, then that's what I'll use. I'm just pretty fed up with big corporations and their bullying tactics these days. (if you've read my posts in the Norton...sucks thread, you'll know why )
Competition is good for everyone, end-users and producers alike. If we get better products, we all win.
Anyway, I really don't want this to turn into the thousandth FF-vs-IE debate. I', a pretty devoted FF user, but if IE7 ends up being a better product for my needs, then that's what I'll use. I'm just pretty fed up with big corporations and their bullying tactics these days. (if you've read my posts in the Norton...sucks thread, you'll know why
)Competition is good for everyone, end-users and producers alike. If we get better products, we all win.
paxx
Reply #39 Friday, March 18, 2005 7:13 PM
Reply #39 Friday, March 18, 2005 7:13 PM
Hehehe! None of course, since site are made with MSHTML right now.
BUt of course you understand that my point was that when HTML was created, the challenge was to find a format that everybody could read. Back then the World wasn't Windows only. There was a great number of different systems quite incompatible with each other. The Internet was created so they can communicate with each other and HTML was invented as a standard language that every system could understand. Of course, back then, it was text only, and tables didn't even exist, but the principle stayed from the initial HTML 1.0 to 2.0. Around HTML 3.0, came the Netscape company started derivating from the standards and were basically saying WE are the true standard. Every needs OUR software to see things right. Then they got beaten at their own game by Microsoft, who was originaly more compliant to the W3C standrds than Netscape was. But it only lasted until IE became the browser everybody used, now it's back to the same problem, but from a different browser made by a different company.
I suspect, as it happened to Netscape, IE will probably be outran by another browser some day. Maybe some Firefox 5.0 or by something else.
BUt of course you understand that my point was that when HTML was created, the challenge was to find a format that everybody could read. Back then the World wasn't Windows only. There was a great number of different systems quite incompatible with each other. The Internet was created so they can communicate with each other and HTML was invented as a standard language that every system could understand. Of course, back then, it was text only, and tables didn't even exist, but the principle stayed from the initial HTML 1.0 to 2.0. Around HTML 3.0, came the Netscape company started derivating from the standards and were basically saying WE are the true standard. Every needs OUR software to see things right. Then they got beaten at their own game by Microsoft, who was originaly more compliant to the W3C standrds than Netscape was. But it only lasted until IE became the browser everybody used, now it's back to the same problem, but from a different browser made by a different company.
I suspect, as it happened to Netscape, IE will probably be outran by another browser some day. Maybe some Firefox 5.0 or by something else.
Adam Najmanowicz
Reply #40 Friday, March 18, 2005 7:19 PM
Reply #40 Friday, March 18, 2005 7:19 PM
tjesterb, that's the point. I hope none of the browser disappears from the scene. Firefox is a really good browser as I stated recently I also use it exclusively for browsing things that I do not get feeds for (for which I use Blog Navigator). If nothing else I hope it alsways stays around to keep Microsft alert.
But despite of what people say, it's a good browser (as in... rendering engine) with a poor/outdated wrapping (the IE window that users see).
But despite of what people say, it's a good browser (as in... rendering engine) with a poor/outdated wrapping (the IE window that users see).
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 2 of 3 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Thursday, March 17, 2005 2:38 PM
We like firefox and prefer it to IE, get over it.