MSIE 7 May Beat Longhorn Out The Gate 733
Quantum Jim writes "InternetNews.com reports that a major upgrade for Microsoft Internet Explorer may be imminent. Apparently in response to the recent mass migration away from MSIE, top Microsoft developers have been soliciting for improvements in the old browser at a web log and at Channel 9, an aggregate journal previously discussed by /.. InternetNews.com speculates that improvements could possibly include support for tabbed browsing, better security, more PNG and CSS compliance, and RSS integration (which Firefox and Opera Mail already support). Go competition!"
Browser Wars II: Mozilla Strikes Back? (Score:5, Interesting)
And, also, the re-rise of that competitor is bringing out the first major feature additions to IE in years...
Re:FireFox (Score:1, Interesting)
I totally hear that. Browsing is definitely an area where innovation is to be embraced, not quarantined and hardened. The promise of always being ahead of IE technology is enough to keep me with Mozilla.
Call Me Clueless (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that Microsoft is finally making some long over due improvements.
But........
If everyone stops using IE and moves to Mozilla/Opera/whatever, Microsoft's loss in revenue is exactly zero.
If everyone abandons other browsers and uses IE exclusively, Microsoft's increase in revenue is exactly zero.
So what's the point of all this?
Re:Browser Wars II: Mozilla Strikes Back? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:FireFox (Score:2, Interesting)
If MSIE 7 runs on each of those platforms, I might consider supporting it too.
Waiting on Google (Score:2, Interesting)
How about a nice serving of FUD??? (Score:1, Interesting)
Feedback (Score:2, Interesting)
I didn't buy their request for user feedback. I'm sure they know exactly what is wrong with their browser. They're not stupid, just evil.
It doesn't matter whether they add tabbed browsing, RSS feed integration or any other interface improvements as long as they support XHTML1.1/CSS2 and the recommended modules of CSS3. If users want features they can easily switch to Opera but as a web developer I have no choice but to make my pages work in IE. So until IE fades out of common usage or it is updated to support current standards, the development of the web be halted and we'll be stuck with 1990s web technology.
Re:Corporations Sucks (Score:3, Interesting)
HOW automobiles (or any other piece of sophisticated technology) actually work will forever remain a mystery to the bulk of the population. However, a manufacturer whose cars had a reputation of being to be easy to break into might have problems in the marketplace.
I think that is what is happening to Explorer. I have had an increasing number of people in recent months start asking me questions about Internet Explorer, security in general, and alternatives to Explorer in particular. I think that's great, and I do what I can to get them thinking about the subject. The recent rather well-publicized CERT recommendation to switch away from IE certainly had a lot to do with it. So don't completely underestimate the ordinary computer user: the problem is more lack of awareness than anything else.
one of my favorites about IE (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, exactly what is it about marking a site that makes it "favorite"?!? Consider for example doing research on euthanasia (sp?)... would that someone sits down to use your browser and sees that you have five references to sites describing or providing "howto's" for euthansia. Are these really semantically "favorites"? I don't think so. It's really an example of how cute MS gets, but doesn't get the semantics. Netscape, Mozilla, and all of the other browsers got it right when they provided "bookmarks". The metaphor is apt, and not overreaching.
Just my $.02, and probably offtopic.
Re:Browser Wars II: Mozilla Strikes Back? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A quote: (Score:5, Interesting)
So far I have found the best way to actually get a page to render acoss a large various of MSIE 5.x and 6.x systems is to write the pages to xhtml 1.0 strict and css 1 and just use the subset of css that IE actually supports. The reason for the xhtml 1.0 strict is that then you can run a simple checker on the document and make sure every tag is properly closed. I know with html soup that IE renders a document as that it should not matter but it does in practice. Well formed html just renders more consistently across the range of IE browsers.
It is stuff like this that web designers want everyone to follow the standards. It is a pain in the neck to program for each browser quirk especially when it changes so much between even minor bug fix versions. At least for opera, konqueror, mozilla, safarri, firefox etc I can write xhtml 1.0 strict and CSS2 and have it render nearly identically in all of them with only a few things that can't be used due to bugs. MS not adhering to standards makes sites cost more to write, more to maintain, more to test etc.
Re:Call Me Clueless (Score:5, Interesting)
Then microsoft decides to incorporate some non-RFC "features" into IE. Developers know that 90% of the people coming to their websites will have support for this feature, and will use it on the sites they design.
Unfortunately, the particular feature that IE supports is directly tied into Windows, and has no counterpart in Firefox/Opera/etc. Users with browsers different to IE will be unable to view sites using this non-RFC feature, or will have a less than optimal browsing experience on those sites. In order to view these sites correctly, you will need to use IE, which in turn locks you into Windows.
I'm using a hypothetical scenario here, but I believe in some instances this has occured in the past - today I have problems viewing websites designed for IE when I use Firefox, and for quite some time internet banking for unusable except for IE.
Because the browser locks you into the operating system, that is the point of this.
Browser stats - where's the proof? (Score:5, Interesting)
From the stats gathering we do on our site, I have yet to see that. Oh sure there's a slight rise but that's not enough to convince marketing etc. Mind you, the 3rd party we use is crap for browser analysis but we're stuck using it because everyone in the industry does.
Are there some reliable browser metrics out there? Your own site stats don't count...
Now is the time... (Score:5, Interesting)
Otherwise, as another poster stated, people will simply wait for MS to level the field with the rest of the browsers and keep using what they have.
Interesting questions, interesting challenges... Are there enough resources? Is there enough people/creativity/motivation/discipline (no bickering, forking and what not) to keep MS at bay? Can the F/OSS community focus on the users and develop widely accepted, non-controversial(*) extensions?
Exciting times - I can hardly wait to see what happens!!
(*) The reason I mention this is because FireFox has this ad blocker... Which is good and all, but at some point someone will point that out as something bad. Even if it still hits the advertiser's servers... Joe Consumer will be under the impression that this is not a "good" browser, developed by "good" people. Remember, chances are Joe Consumer does not care about adverts. And companies may find an excuse to indulge in more yummy FUD :( Fear the media, people...
Good news. (Score:1, Interesting)
Incidentally, that little factoid about the mass migration away from IE? It's not true. At least not according to my website statistics.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Patenting Features (Score:2, Interesting)
If Microsoft's IE team comes up with a nifty new feature that makes surfing the net easier, I can see two possible scenarios: 1) Microsoft patents the feature making it exlcusive to IE 2) the feature is quickly copied into Firefox by either the MozDev team or an enthusiastic extenstion developer. Without patenting features, how can Microsoft keep Internet Explorer superior to its competitors feature-wise? I suppose plug-ins exist for IE to include mouse gestures and tabbing and such, but are these as much of a threat to Firefox and Opera?
CSS compliance and IE (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yeah (Score:5, Interesting)
As a side note, the only reason that I don't use Firefox is that it locks up when I access slashdot (on both home and work PCs, unfortunately). I'd use Mozilla but it just doesn't look/feel like a Windows app. I guess that I'll keep waiting.
Re:FireFox (Score:2, Interesting)
If you can come up with something better than "Uhhh Firefox sucks!" then the Mozilla developers would love it if you could tell them about your problem [mozilla.org].
I'd bet any issue you can come up with is either difficult and being worked on [mozilla.org], something which is totally unused and therefore possibly lacking dots on is [mozilla.org] or not even complete but still implementing 99% of it all [mozilla.org]
Unfortunately Slashdot isn't the place to get anything done on Mozilla but a lot of the devs will jump to fix a bug in bugzilla with a simple testcase that explicitly demonstrates the problem. We look forward to your contribution.
Re:Secret to the fast release revealed! (Score:2, Interesting)
Hey MS, do us all a favor and at least make "100%" mean 100% in the CSS spans.
Re:Browser Wars II: Mozilla Strikes Back? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure I agree with this. With few exceptions, I rarely meet anyone who is happy with their Windows PC. They are certainly not satisfied, but merely have no alternative. At least in my experience, most people use Windows and its software because they have to, not because they want to, and they're no afraid to express it if asked. The problem, however, is that you can't complain to Microsoft and expect to get any meaningful reaction. You simply have to accept what Microsoft provides you and then deal with it.
The reasons I've encountered frequently involve not knowing about any alternative. If they're aware of something like Linux, they have no idea of how to switch, or have the perception that they're too locked into Windows already to even seriously consider it. Most people have no way to reliably back up their data and simply zap windows without the fear of not being able to get it back. There are some great open source ideas such as Knoppix that may work towards this, but right now at least there's still not a lot of interest or publicity out there.
My own conclusion is that Microsoft isn't successful today because it offers satisfaction or just working. In many cases there are superior alternatives to Microsoft products, even within Windows. It's successful because it's engineered a world of ignorance and despair, in which people aren't confident that they're expert enough to understand anything different from The Microsoft Experience (tm), and don't want to take the risk of falling off.
Photocopiers were initially useless, too (Score:5, Interesting)
There's an analogy here to do with Xerox and the photocopier, which I think is quite relevant:
When the photocopier was first developed and Xerox began marketing it to businesses, it took a lot of effort because the bosses couldn't see the point. From a PHB's perspective, there's not a lot of point in having a machine to duplicate documents. After all, whenever a boss wanted a copy of a document they would hand it to the secretary who would re-type it, perhaps with a few sheets of carbon paper.
Xerox eventually sold it to businesses by proposing to simply install the photocopier for free, and only charge for the copies that were made using it. Many more PHB's then accepted it, and it immediately became a fantastic tool for the secretaries who no longer had to struggle through typing and re-typing entire documents just to make identical copies. It was only at this point that its usefulness really became apparent to a lot of bosses, who realised that the availability of a photocopier was letting their staff spend time on other things. Really the end customer (PHB) wasn't interested in the photocopier, but by providing it they made someone else's job much easier which resulted in a better service.
I guess if Microsoft wants to market standards compliant CSS and PNG support, they should be marketing it at the people to whom it'll mean the most. ie. The developers. Those are the people whom it's going to benefit most immediately, after all: not the end customer. If there are enough websites and web applications out there that require IE7 and assuming Microsoft makes it easy to get, it really shouldn't be much of a problem.
Re:Article summary--uh, "recent mass migration?" (Score:5, Interesting)
What I've done... (Score:4, Interesting)
I've also posted an explanation on the desktop entitled Read Me.
I have left IE on the desktop for the diehards, mostly to keep the complaint level down.
What I've found: Some people love it (there are one or two who want Opera) . Others just use what's in front of them. Still others re-arrange and delete the Mozilla icon (which re-appears on reboot).
*Shrug*. We've got some people who do online banking and ebay and whatnot and insist on IE. It's not like the IE fans haven't been warned.
These computers also have OpenOffice. There have been *O* complaints, just questions whether it will open and save Word files. Yes...yes, you can!
Shameless plug: Deep Freeze. Let them screw with the computers to their hearts' content. Power-cycle or soft reboot and it goes back to normal.
--
BMO
Perhaps they'll finally fix... (Score:4, Interesting)
2. While it's a minor thing, how is it that IE can eventually forget every site icon? I mean, really...come on guys....
The Real Way to A Browser War (Score:2, Interesting)
Just like in the old says, when we had the Netscape Now buttons.
But no one is going to hurt their ROI just because they want to hurt microsoft.
But i dunno if some major news sites, were like, you need Mozilla to view this site. Who Knows?
Problem is the people CSS is intended to save. Dial up users. How can they get their hands on Mozilla. AOL needs to use their CD distribution program for something good. i.e Mozilla!
Of course whenever i say mozilla i mean firefox.
Slashdot in Firefox (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaking of which, does anyone know (a) why this happens, (b) why it only happens occasionally, and (c) whether anyone is working on fixing it? I would have guessed that Taco and Jamie and so forth use Firefox, but maybe not. [shrug]
Re:FireFox (Score:1, Interesting)
Once I wondered why on earth a browser would have "tar this file with ark" in the actions submenu. I clicked it just to see what it would do. It downloaded the file, zipped it, then attempted to upload it (but failed as I didn't have write access to the site).
So.. it seems like KDE has the ability to do what you want, anyway.
Re:Corporations Sucks (Score:3, Interesting)
The Windows API has had two MAJOR updates in the past 20 years (from Win16 to Win32 to .NET) and many minor ones.
Re:The W3C isn't that bad! (Score:4, Interesting)
No, use CSS whenever you need (or want) to say how something's displayed. Use Javascript whenever you need (or want) a page to be dynamic (but don't use it for things that you can accomplish with CSS/HTML!). And yes, as you say, HTML 4 still works. Just make sure your html is semantic.
It was originally designed that way, but now it is quite useful for documents, small programs (like rot13ing text, or something on a similar scale) and web applications (where a user interacts with a program that is actually on the server by means of a web browser and an html interface)
The other stuff you wrote was good, though.
Re:Article summary--uh, "recent mass migration?" (Score:1, Interesting)
Because they want the bragging rights of having their story published. They believe the wilder the story is the more likely it'll go to the front page. The editors like wild stories because, well... Slashdot's simply become "News at 10" minus the sex.
Re:FireFox (Score:2, Interesting)
To add another degree of fun, I then decided to test my site in opera... and safari... and IE for the Mac... and KDE...
Everything renders fine now... but my code is so fubar that I'm glad I'm using a template engine to output data
I sure do wish people would stick to at least some standard...
Re:Article summary--uh, "recent mass migration?" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yeah (Score:3, Interesting)
if so it'll be this: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24352
Re:The W3C isn't that bad! (Score:5, Interesting)
*sigh*
Do you know the relevant history behind the development of the WWW? Do you know why web browsers show a little hand with a finger pointing out when you hover over a link even today? It's because of the software the web was modelled after. Hugely influential and revolutionary software by Bill Atkison. Software for creating little 'page' (card) based 'applications'. That was where the initial inspiration came from.
Like many others I'm sure I was creating networked, linkable and editable wiki style 'sites' with it before the WWW, the only major difference was it was with proprietary software. TBL saw HC and was inspired by it. I think it entirely possible he wouldn't have bothered with creating HTML had HC not been proprietary.
Today, web applications are all around us. They are revolutionising the way we live. They are a big deal. The only reason TBL's implementation is not is good at allowing people to create web applications as Bill Atkison's inspirational software is that TBL didn't know how (or have the resources/inclination) to implement many of the relevant features, and they missed the boat on having a half decent scripting language so Netscape assumed dominance with the god awful JavaScript to fill a niche, by then it was too late, we were stuck with a Turkey.
People are spending vast amounts of time and money building web apps. Huge financial resources are put into it each year by corporations building web apps for customers, online stores, B2B and users build web apps just for fun. So much futile effort and man power could be better spent if we just had a decent implementation of a standard for that, but we don't so expensive investment in working around this gaping whole in the current technology is the norm. It's really quite insane, especially when you've experienced a highly equivalent way of doing the same thing that's so much better.
The WWW is not about simply 'sharing documents' (do not listen to your inner hobgoblin who tells you otherwise), it's about sharing information - the exchange of information - and that's a two way process, and for that, you need an interface that facilitates that.
Oh and don't worry - I know how Internet standards bodies like the W3C typically work and I think it's surely painfully obvious to those who still don't get it that its a poor way to make standards. I know many will disagree, but to them I point out the result of the current system - we live in a world of half baked web and network standards the implementations of which are rarely actually compatible.
The sad testiment is that today, proprietary reverse engineered solutions are usually better at providing interoperability that competing platforms are at implementing identically functioning standards based systems!
It's a shameful mess for a technically competent society to be in.
As the bunny icon used to say '"Subvert the dominant paradigm!"
The WWW has alas been crippled by a lack of vision since the W3C's inception. It's too bad there are not more Bill Atkinson's to go round.
Re:Secret to the fast release revealed! (Score:4, Interesting)
They seem to be under the impression that PNG alpha and CSS support are solely in the interests of web developers.
I am no professional when it comes to web design - I'm not going to tailor a site for IE, so if they start to support accepted standards it's purely a bonus for the visitor (or "customer")
Also, if I was a Microsoft customer I would be inclined to find the statement from the article insulting. Back when I was a MS customer I did want things like CSS and PNG support - that's why I used Mozilla. That they assume a zero level of knowledge just because I use their products is probably why I stopped using their products.
Bottom line: Standards support? Don't bet on it - Microsoft didn't get where they are today by supporting open standards, they prefer to invent them.
Re:Patenting Features (Score:3, Interesting)
-MT.
Re:Secret to the fast release revealed! (Score:3, Interesting)
It would be stupid not to at least make sure a site works/looks right in IE. But that doesn't mean it can't also be standards-compliant and work in other browsers.
The motto on one of my sites is: Best viewed in a standards compliant browser, but also works in IE. After making it standards compliant, I then made the necessary tweaks to work around IE rendering quirks... and yes, the motto is there to be funny, but it's funny because it's true.
I just find it funny that, since IE 4.0, no major features have been added, and many bugs/quirks remain. Having the majority of the market there was no reason to innovate, until now (hell, IE is about the only browser without tabbed browsing and popup blocking). Competition is good...
Re:Mod Parent Up (Score:3, Interesting)
AND Netcraft has issued an advisory indicating that banner ads could be used to spread malware.
I have to wonder if the average user really understands these advisories though. I mean, they always refer to an Outlook exploit as an "email virus".
Even worse, and almost made me sick, was when my cousin said the other day: You're still using Google? Didn't you hear about the Google virus? I just banged my head on my desk for a while until he went away...
Though I have noticed more and more people on Firefox lately, I think most users don't understand the concept of a "browser", and rather than being scared of Microsoft software (as they should) they are scared of the Internet and computers in general.
Re:On the other hand, surely google knows this? (Score:1, Interesting)
To use your example of counting only the results page: Internet Explorer screws up HTTP. RFC 2616 states that hitting the back button should show exactly what the user saw last, and should not reload the page. Internet Explorer, at least under some circumstances, reloads the page.
What this means is that, for a typical scenario of a user searching for something, clicking on the first ten links in turn, and then hitting the back button after looking at each one, an Internet Explorer user is going to register as eleven hits compred with a single hit for a browser that conforms to RFC 2616.
Re:Secret to the fast release revealed! (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:A quote: (Score:3, Interesting)
For the record, I once bothered [aagh.net] to do it properly. HTML 4.01 Strict to most clients; XHTML 1.1 to clients which claim to accept it. Costs a bit of string matching, a small XSLT and a lot of testing.
The benefit? Uh, well, I got on the X-Philes [goer.org] and learnt some stuff about XHTML; namely that it's not really worth using in most circumstances.
Re:So you're the guy... (Score:2, Interesting)
There are some things that are kinda tricky to get working in Lynx, but when you have them working, you often have a page that is better thought-out, and where the markup makes more sense for what you're trying to do.
Don't be fooled (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The W3C isn't that bad! (Score:3, Interesting)
Web apps might be a bit hackish, yes, but they're quite useful. Look, for example, at an airline booking site--that's a web app. So are eBay and Amazon. Can you think of any other reasonable way to allow everyone to book flights or buy stuff online? Web apps also drastically reduce the cost of developing and distributing the program in a corporate intranet.
Also, they're hackish because the languages used (namely HTML) weren't designed with web apps in mind and thus are missing a number of features that would be good for them. whatwg [whatwg.org] is trying to remedy that.
No, I didn't. Thank you. :-)