This is topic Internet Explorer 7 in forum Your News! at The Geek Culture Forums!.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.geekculture.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=002303

Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on March 17, 2005, 07:16:
 

Microsoft will be making IE 7, and independent of Longhorn


This was announced on /. a few days ago. Some new features included are: tabbed browsing, news aggregators, enhanced security, transparent png support, and native IDN support.

I'm not sure if it should be named ie 7, or firefox 0.9.

If you've read my posts over the time I've been here, I'm sure you're already well aware of my loathing hatred for Microsoft and everything they've done, but haven't they gone far enough?

They're blatantly copying firefox. They're going to call it 'innovative', and they're going to have a strangle hold on the browser market as they have all along. What the hell is wrong with people today?

Go get firefox today.

Oh yes, and according to rumours, MS developers will embrace SOME of the CSS2 standards outlined by w3c, but they're not interested in supporting them entirely. [Roll Eyes] [shake head]
 
Posted by Mac D (Member # 2926) on March 17, 2005, 07:19:
 
I call for a complete boycot of Microsoft.

I started years ago.
 
Posted by CommanderShroom (Member # 2097) on March 17, 2005, 07:59:
 
I use a mix of MS and Linux myself. As far as the things they are planning on adding. Do what works. I only use IE when the page requires me to use Active-X or something of the such. And certain Nortel apps won't work on anything else. I always complain about MS's disregard of agreed standards. I hope they can get IE7 to work right. It will make my life easier on those occasions that I have to go to someones house and fix their crap.
 
Posted by magefile (Member # 2918) on March 17, 2005, 08:00:
 
Sigh ... it'd be so much easier, wouldn't it? If they all conformed to one standard? OTOH, if IE7 is an improvement (yeah, yeah, heresy), that could spark some more competition and improvement in FF, Konq, etc.

/me needs to quit it with the wishful thinking.
 
Posted by Swiss Mercenary (Member # 330) on March 17, 2005, 08:07:
 
I am now using FireFox almost all the time.

Trouble is that a couple of site I have visited refuse me entry because I am not using Micro$haft Internet Exploder. Now that is what really gets me upset.
 
Posted by Snaggy (Member # 123) on March 17, 2005, 08:10:
 
dnm... now you know how Mac users have been feeling since the introduction of Windows. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by garlicguy (Member # 3166) on March 17, 2005, 08:14:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mac D:
I call for a complete boycott of Microsoft.

I started years ago.

Yeayyy! Ditto!

quote:
Originally poste by dnm:
If you've read my posts over the time I've been here, I'm sure you're already well aware of my loathing hatred for Microsoft and everything they've done, but haven't they gone far enough?

That whole snake-eyed crew at MS went too far many years ago. Unfortunately, the snake-eyed crew at Apple is looking more and more like them every day. Integrity in American business? Now *that's* a rumor.

Edit: Firefox - YES! IE and Safari absolutely reek by comparison.
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on March 17, 2005, 09:46:
 
I've never given MS a cent of my money, ever.

I run Linux on everything.

My business partner has a Windows 2003 server on the web for our business, and if I absolutely *NEED* windows for any reason, I'll remote desktop into it for as long as it takes to get what I need done, and then I'm out again.

I generally refuse to give my business to any company who designs a website that will only work in IE. You can't support proper standards, I'm not giving you any of my money.

(Bell Canada's website is one of them -- try and change your address in firefox... doesn't work do to ie-centric style sheets hiding the postal code field -- as such, I have NO services from Bell Canada, and it feels GOOD.)
 
Posted by moped-rider (Member # 3532) on March 17, 2005, 11:50:
 
I got to say this bill sucks!!! He has had the monopoly on operating systems for years, and now he his trying to rip the makers of firefox off.It really gets me angry. [Mad]
 
Posted by jordanv (Member # 3189) on March 17, 2005, 14:31:
 
No doubt we will get CSS2 Extended version - featuring ActiveX++ which allows you command line access via one line of code.

I don't think Apple are becoming evil - they always were, but now they are successful and can afford to screw over the tech community on which they relied for many a year.
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on March 17, 2005, 16:57:
 
I too think MS is an evil empire, but I cannot quite see what is making dnm quite so antsy this time. It is quite predictable that MS would do this as they saw Firefox gaining traction, and it is simply a logical business decision. Compared to previuos episodes, this is quite gentlemanly behaviour, and it would be highly surprising if they did not include in IE 7 all the features you mention that any modern browser has. I would also point out while it is a common and legitimate complaint that MS (given its overwhelming size and financial muscle) provide little that is original and innovative, apart from the ways they try to lock you into their software, but as far as browsers are concerned, this is not really true. In their day IE 4 and IE 5 were quite innovative and pioneering.

Whether they will be able to produce something that breaks any new ground this time is uncertain, and even more doubtful that they will produce anything substantially more secure.
 
Posted by magefile (Member # 2918) on March 17, 2005, 18:46:
 
I think it's not so much that Microsoft is being malicious right now, as that their actions will cause IE to be in favor. It's a lot harder to promote Firefox by saying it's standards compliant, because people don't know what that is, or why standards-compliance is a Good Thing.

Thus, if Microsoft can say we have features X,Y,Z, and this causes people to switch back, MS is still not likely to improve CSS support and other compatibility issues. Thus, increased popularity of IE will continue to be a PITA for web developers. I for one would be much happier if KHTML and Gecko were dominant, rather than Trident.

OTOH, he could just be knee-jerking MS==Bad.
 
Posted by jordanv (Member # 3189) on March 17, 2005, 21:00:
 
The thing is IE will still be shipped with windows. People will assume IE is "good enough" again.
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on March 17, 2005, 21:12:
 
Hey, if IE can be a better browser, all the more power to them. It's about time they finally fscking fix their PNG deficiency (so infuriating that IE does not support PNG alpha blending OOB). The really important thing is that Firefox/Mozilla/Safari/Opera cannot stagnate, and must not just maintain their quality products, but improve them, and provide a clear advantage. Netscape has gone down the tubes because it just rested on its laurels, and didn't even do a good job maintaining their software. I switched to IE somewhere around v3.0 because NS2-3 was crashing left and right, but IE worked for a longer period of time (though it froze from time to time, I think). Mind you, both were improvements over Mosaic. [Wink]

Safari really does nothing for me - I'm glad that Apple is supporting the KHTML rendering engine, and hope that it brings better functionality to Konqueror - a browser that I did enjoy using ages ago. The little-browser-that-could that I root for is Dillo - small and fast, it runs circles around Firefox on my laptop. Right now, though, I'm using an older copy of Mozilla (*blink* *blink* - hmm...I'm actually using 1.7.2 - I thought I was using 1.4), as it still runs faster than Firefox - which is kind of odd, actually (given the bloat factor of Seamonkey).

Let the browser wars begin!
 
Posted by TMBWITW,PB (Member # 1734) on March 17, 2005, 21:20:
 
Browser Wars. Let's see who comes out on top.
 
Posted by csk (Member # 1941) on March 17, 2005, 21:45:
 
quote:
Originally posted by jordanv:
The thing is IE will still be shipped with windows. People will assume IE is "good enough" again.

Yes and no. The security issues with IE have put off a lot of people, both corporate and home users. From what I'm seeing, there are quite a few non technical users (possibly prompted by technical ones) switching over to Firefox as an anti virus/popup/security exploit measure. The corporate users are going to be easier to win over and keep, it's the home users where the real battle will be, especially given that not all bells and whistles work with Firefox.
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on March 17, 2005, 21:51:
 
csk: Actually, I meant to mention this before - things are starting to improve on those fronts already:
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/0,2000061733,39184793,00.htm
Source: http://mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=6245
 
Posted by SilverBlade (Member # 3541) on March 18, 2005, 03:13:
 
I personally am glad IE will take a larger share of the internet users.

If everybody had changed to Firefox, it would become a larger potential target to be hacked and so forth, making it as insecure as IE was before.

So let all the AOL users use their precious IE and leave us geeks and our Firefox's alone! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on March 18, 2005, 06:20:
 
quote:
Originally posted by SilverBlade:
I personally am glad IE will take a larger share of the internet users.

If everybody had changed to Firefox, it would become a larger potential target to be hacked and so forth, making it as insecure as IE was before.

So let all the AOL users use their precious IE and leave us geeks and our Firefox's alone! [Big Grin]

Start writing web-based software. You'll change your tune rather quickly.

.. my big beef isn't that, "OH MY GOD MS IS EVIL DIE DIE DIE!", everyonw knows I hate them for more reasons than just that.

My issue is that they are going to package it with their operating systems as they have before, they're going to make it the default browser, they're going to take back marketshare that shouldn't be theirs, and they're going to continue to make crap.
 
Posted by hey-U (Member # 2128) on March 18, 2005, 08:22:
 
quote:
Originally posted by SilverBlade:
I personally am glad IE will take a larger share of the internet users.

If everybody had changed to Firefox, it would become a larger potential target to be hacked and so forth, making it as insecure as IE was before.

So let all the AOL users use their precious IE and leave us geeks and our Firefox's alone! [Big Grin]

Ah, the old "security through obscurity" philosophy... Admittedly, Firefox seems to get patched quicker than IE -- but what doesn't? ;-)

Personally, I'm quite happy with Safari, OK it's not perfect, but AFAIK, there's no optimized-for-G4-Powerbook version of Firefox... :-(

Still, maybe Safari 2 in the forthcoming OS 10.4 will tie up the loose ends...

And, FWIW, *my* problem with MS is that the poor quality of the products doesn't justify the hefty price tag, IMNSHO... Not to mention the way they seem to lock the user base in (not that Apple is entirely perfect, either!)
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on March 18, 2005, 08:59:
 
hey-U: Wanna bet?
http://homepage.mac.com/krmathis/

Source: http://www.squarefree.com/burningedge/ -> http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=149532
 
Posted by hey-U (Member # 2128) on March 18, 2005, 09:08:
 
quote:
Originally posted by dragonman97:
hey-U: Wanna bet?
http://homepage.mac.com/krmathis/

Source: http://www.squarefree.com/burningedge/ -> http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=149532

oooOOOooohhh!!! Nice link, dman, muchas gracias! (there goes my Friday night!)
:-)
 
Posted by greycat (Member # 945) on March 22, 2005, 06:07:
 
I have some issues with Firefox. I use it at home as my default browser on my Debian box, but I have version 0.8 put on hold. The last time I tried to "upgrade" to Firefox 1.0, things broke horribly. And going back to 0.8 wasn't pleasant either. I think I ended up completely obliterating my ~/.firefox directory (after having saved the bookmarks.html file) and starting fresh.

1) Extensions that work in 0.8 may not work in 1.0. In particular, the God Of All Extensions, mozex, doesn't seem to have a 0.9+ version yet.

2) Pressing Ctrl-U in the URL bar in 0.8 acts just like a Unix user expects Ctrl-U to work -- it clears the field. Pressing Ctrl-U in the URL bar in 1.0 brings up the page source. UGH!

3) There's no Firefox for HP-UX 10. There's no Mozilla for HP-UX 10 newer than Mozilla 1.4, which I'm using right now. Of course, since HP-UX 10 is officially past end of life, I can't blame them for not officially support them, but ....

4) Firefox 1.0's source code is a righteous fucking mess. It's not even a single build tree. It's a handful of build trees all slapped together, and each one has its own completely differet method of deciding which compiler to use, which options to pass to it, and so on. Even if you manage to convince part of the fucker to build with gcc, the rest of it still wants to build with cc. And there are platform-specific #ifdef statements that really need to become autoconf macros. And they need to not invoke ld directly in their Makefiles. And if you issue a command manually to build a single *.o file, then go back and do a "make", it might blow away your *.o file and then build it wrong (and therefore crash and die) all over again. And you can't type "make" from a subtree to build just that subtree; you have to do it from the top level and waste 20 minutes going over stuff that's already built.

And oh, did I mention, the top-level directory of the Firefox 1.0 source code is just "mozilla"?

It's a fucking CVS snapshot, people. It's not a one point oh release. It's not even close.

The fact that this thing is the best there is for Windows tells us more about the competition than it does about Firefox itself.

5) Yes, I know it's a standalone browser, and it's not supposed to have a built-in mail reader, news reader, and so on, but there needs to be a WebDAV client for it. It doesn't necessarily have to be Mozilla's fancy Composer, but god damn... there needs to be something... even if it's just system(3) calls to cadaver(1) in an xterm(1)... come on, anything! Why is there no WebDAV client extension yet?
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on March 22, 2005, 06:51:
 
quote:
Originally posted by greycat:
1) Extensions that work in 0.8 may not work in 1.0. In particular, the God Of All Extensions, mozex, doesn't seem to have a 0.9+ version yet.

I've never even heard of mozex. I shall read up on it if you speak so highly of it.

quote:

2) Pressing Ctrl-U in the URL bar in 0.8 acts just like a Unix user expects Ctrl-U to work -- it clears the field. Pressing Ctrl-U in the URL bar in 1.0 brings up the page source. UGH!

[Eek!] I thought I was the only one who cared about that, and just chalked it up to "oh well" and moved on.

quote:
4) Firefox 1.0's source code is a righteous fucking mess. It's not even a single build tree. It's a handful of build trees all slapped together, and each one has its own completely differet method of deciding which compiler to use, which options to pass to it, and so on. Even if you manage to convince part of the fucker to build with gcc, the rest of it still wants to build with cc. And there are platform-specific #ifdef statements that really need to become autoconf macros. And they need to not invoke ld directly in their Makefiles. And if you issue a command manually to build a single *.o file, then go back and do a "make", it might blow away your *.o file and then build it wrong (and therefore crash and die) all over again. And you can't type "make" from a subtree to build just that subtree; you have to do it from the top level and waste 20 minutes going over stuff that's already built.

I totally hear you on that one. I decided I was going to see if I could get any speed out of firefox by recompiling it from source with some nicely set CFLAGS. Half of the source ignored it, half the source pulled out a different compiler, and half the source specifically set its own CFALGS for me! (I'm not good with fractions. [Wink] ) I said screw it and went back to the .deb.

You still gotta snicker every time you build and watch that its image rendering library is called 'libpr0n'.
 
Posted by suttsteve (Member # 3448) on March 22, 2005, 07:49:
 
If you ask me, Firefox is the one that's copying IE. That's just my opinion, though.
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on March 22, 2005, 08:37:
 
quote:
Originally posted by suttsteve:
If you ask me, Firefox is the one that's copying IE. That's just my opinion, though.

That's the silliest thing I've ever heard, but OK.
 
Posted by CommanderShroom (Member # 2097) on March 22, 2005, 10:15:
 
quote:
Originally posted by drunkennewfiemidget:
quote:
Originally posted by suttsteve:
If you ask me, Firefox is the one that's copying IE. That's just my opinion, though.

That's the silliest thing I've ever heard, but OK.
I agree with DNM on that.

suttsteve, how did you come to that conclusion? I am curious why you believe what you do. You don't happen to be from Redmond, eh?
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on March 22, 2005, 11:02:
 
greycat: Guess what? I'm also running FF0.8 on one of my boxen now. [Smile] Damn PITA that you can't use FF1.0 w/o GTK2 [easily]. *sigh*

P.S. Any tips on getting the above to work?
 
Posted by GameMaster (Member # 1173) on March 22, 2005, 12:46:
 
quote:
Originally posted by suttsteve:
If you ask me, Firefox is the one that's copying IE. That's just my opinion, though.

<sarcasm>
Yeah, we all know IE has been following the W3C standards for years. And I can't remember a version of IE that didn't come with tabed browsing. The side panel was IE's first too... And MS was the first to release the source code so that we hackers can poke about and make sure that it is really secure, does what we want it to and is not in the least made profiteering company that squashes or asslaminates anybody who does anything original like those evil monopolistic Mozilla development people.
</sarcasm>
 
Posted by Xanthine (Member # 736) on March 22, 2005, 12:51:
 
Why are you guys feeding such an obvious troll??
 
Posted by GameMaster (Member # 1173) on March 22, 2005, 12:57:
 
I'm not sure he is a troll... He hasn't said much on the board, and hasn't gotten into it... Even Cap'n hasn't taken issue with him. He may just have an opinion that we don't agree with or see... When he posts "Gates is god, bow to Gates..." Then we'll get our pitch forks and run 'im out. K?
 
Posted by CommanderShroom (Member # 2097) on March 22, 2005, 13:22:
 
Actually I wasn't trying to bait. I am honestly curious. Does he have a fact I am unaware of or perhaps he is missing some facts of his own and is drawing to a faulty conclusion.

That is why I asked. Though perhaps I should have added [Razz] to the end of my Redmond statement.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on March 22, 2005, 13:23:
 
You've got to admit though, Micro$oft are far more innovative in their browser, they do just about everything differently.
 
Posted by suttsteve (Member # 3448) on March 22, 2005, 14:00:
 
I'm not a troll and have never trolled in my life. I was just stating my opinion. I actually use Firefox. It's just that the GUI and layout of the two browsers seem similar to me.
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on March 22, 2005, 14:13:
 
Heh, in one of my English 400s classes at PSU, we read a book about how humans are creatures of habit and some of the "silly" things designers do when they're trying to find something "unique" and "interesting."

People have played with the layout of Web Browsers, but somehow we've settled on a standard appearance... back/forward buttons, refresh, stop, and home seem to be the minimum. Their look and placement varies according to preference (yay, FireFox skins!), but they're always going to be there in some form. That's 'cause we're accustomed to those buttons and they seem to be the essentials for surfing the 'Net using windows (vs. a console).

So in that sense, suttsteve has a bit of a point. (I'd say he has a point, but I don't know offhand which came first--IE, Safari, Opera, Netscape, or Browser X.)
 
Posted by CommanderShroom (Member # 2097) on March 22, 2005, 15:01:
 
quote:
Originally posted by suttsteve:
I'm not a troll and have never trolled in my life. I was just stating my opinion. I actually use Firefox. It's just that the GUI and layout of the two browsers seem similar to me.

I can see that. But then again all the web browsers have had the same general feel as long as I can remember. Let's keep the text browsers out of it.

The layout has generally stayed the same. I guess that what you are saying is a partial truth. I believe that Firefox looks more like IE than some of the other alternatives. I think it was a smart move also. It makes it easier to transition.

But to say that Firefox is copying IE because of similar layouts is a bit much. They (and Mozilla) have added a lot of items to their browsers that until the release of IE7 was really quite unique. Mozilla has basically taken the ideas and put them together to make a complete experience. Without beating anyone down.
 
Posted by suttsteve (Member # 3448) on March 22, 2005, 15:39:
 
That's true.
 
Posted by n4dmx (Member # 3177) on March 22, 2005, 15:40:
 
Currently:

Firefox = good
Internet Explorer = bad

Your all gay. [Razz]
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on March 22, 2005, 16:45:
 
Unless, of course, you work for a large direct mail company, then the opposite is true. [Frown]
 
Posted by MacManKrisK (Member # 955) on March 22, 2005, 16:53:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
(I'd say he has a point, but I don't know offhand which came first--IE, Safari, Opera, Netscape, or Browser X.)

A little browser called NCSA Mosiac.
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on March 22, 2005, 21:03:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
Unless, of course, you work for a large direct mail company, then the opposite is true. [Frown]

How exactly does that make the preceding comments any less true? It just means that they're not embracing the goodness. [Smile]

/me can't wait until FF1.1 comes out - MSIs!!! *That* is going to help things out for FF in the corporate environment a bit. Heck, to my surprise, I just learned that my "big boss" is using Firefox...he commented as such when I opened FF on my machine to let him get to something, and said "I've been trying it and I like it." That pleased me a whole lot - that might get me a lot more buy in* from my manager/boss in the future.

*I'm dead tired right now - what's the right way to write that? (Space, hypenated, or otherwise?)
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on March 22, 2005, 21:44:
 
Okay, okay, my logic wasn't exactly logical, but understandable, right? (Where I work if I want to check my work e-mail I need to use IE 'cause Outlook Express won't run in FF. In the eyes of the company, IE is good and FF is bad. [Frown] )
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on March 22, 2005, 21:48:
 
More like "I like the Big E -- everyone's going to use the Big E, because that's what everyone else does, right?" Oh, and "Site Foo Bar Baz requires it."

[Smile]
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on March 22, 2005, 21:55:
 
Oh, don't get me wrong, dman. I despise IE. Firefox is the best browser I've found. (Opera's a close second, IMHO, but it's not very practical for my family.) I just have my hands tied if I want to check work e-mail. [ohwell]
 
Posted by jordanv (Member # 3189) on March 22, 2005, 22:59:
 
Do I win bonus points for running IE through WINE?
 
Posted by suttsteve (Member # 3448) on March 23, 2005, 05:22:
 
I think both browsers have their own merits. It's really just a matter of personal preference.
 
Posted by drunkennewfiemidget (Member # 2814) on March 23, 2005, 05:43:
 
quote:
Originally posted by MacManKrisK:
quote:
Originally posted by Rhonwyyn:
(I'd say he has a point, but I don't know offhand which came first--IE, Safari, Opera, Netscape, or Browser X.)

A little browser called NCSA Mosiac.
Mosaic. [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by dragonman97:

*I'm dead tired right now - what's the right way to write that? (Space, hypenated, or otherwise?)

buy-in. [Smile]

And the fact that a company is too narrow-sighted to write any web-based software so that it won't work in any browser other than IE is nothing short of BAD WORK, and I do everything in my power to boycott those companies and not give them my business. Imbeciles.
 
Posted by CommanderShroom (Member # 2097) on March 23, 2005, 12:02:
 
I found a site that disagrees with Mosaic being the first. This site says that World Wide Web browser was first with a release date of '89. And that Mosaic was a close second.
 


© 2018 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0