Interview with Microsoft Exec on IE7 and RSS

AvianFlugelhorn writes "BetaNews has posted an interview with Gary Schare, Director of IE Product Management, which touches on the changes coming in IE7, Firefox's growth, and how Microsoft will bring RSS to the mainstream. It's interesting to see Schare become more humble since a November 2004 interview, when he questioned whether Firefox could attract more than just early adopters. Now, Microsoft says: 'we respect the work that the Firefox guys have done.' Schare also admits problems with ActiveX and explains why Microsoft will revolutionize RSS." Couple of days old, but still interesting.

Definition of "Early Adopters"

It's interesting to see Schare become more humble since a November 2004 interview, when he questioned whether Firefox could attract more than just early adopters.

So this came up today at work. And I thought I'd clear up some things for people who are confused as to what the phrase 'early adopters' means.

'Early adopters' are what marketers call the first people to use your product. Now, let's say that there's some tiny percentage of people who initially use Firefox just because they had something to do with it or they need to run a web app that works best in Firefox. This 5% of the population is known as the 'early adopters' as it doesn't really matter what your product is; they're going to use it regardless.

Now, imagine a normal curve of the population of users. The early adopters are the ones on the far left who use it right away and the ones on the right are the crusty old-there's-nothing-better-than-IE-change-is-bad people who will refuse until the bitter end. If you make it past the early adopters and into the 35%-45% of the population range on the curve, then suddenly this product can stand on its own. To hell with the competition, it can now fend for itself in the market with that kind of user base backing it.

What he meant in that quote was that it had yet to be seen if Firefox would even make it past the initial 5% that would use it regardless and into a phenomenon that could potentially be a competitor with Internet Explorer.

In most of the applications a programmer undertakes, she or he must strive to encompass more than just early adopters if it is hoped for the product to last. This usually involves clever marketing gimmicks or commercials but, thank the lord, in Firefox's case it's just been sheer security and ingenuity of the product helping it over this curve.

Not only do I think it's well on its way past the early adopter phase, but I myself have moved to be an early adopter for most open source solutions I can find out there.

Re:"embrace and extend"

This just in:

Microsoft is telling us they will "revolutionize RSS" and "bring RSS to the mainstream". We all know what Bill's "embrace and extend" plans have done in the past.

And, I hate to be the one to point it out to you, Bill, but RSS is mainstream. All you'll do is fragment its marketplace.

Re:"embrace and extend"

RSS is designed to be extended, the base specification is very loose and open to extension by third parties. Lots of companies already use extensions to RSS, so MS wont be the first if they do, and they wont be 'evil' if they do. Get over it.

Respect?

So will Firefox users have any respect for IE7 as a capable browser (if it proves to be so)?

Re:Respect?

Will people wave hello to the flying pigs as they fly south for the winter?

Couple of days old

I didn't realize Slashdot posted things so recent...

My recommendation: Take out ActiveX!

"Schare also admits problems with ActiveX"

From my point of view, the whole ActiveX thing in IE should be taken out. In today's world, ActiveX does have a couple of niche uses, but the Internet by far has left it behind as a old technology. Technologies/Techniques like Flash, Javascript, AJAX, PHP, browser extensions and the rest can do a lot of what ActiveX could do, and much more securely. ActiveX in my view is a weak link that is asking for viruses.

This is great...

"Quite often when you see an IE patch coming out, it's not actually a patch to IE code. It's a patch to kill the ActiveX control that's no longer needed, which we've determined has a vulnerability in it. ActiveX Opt-in is designed to reduce that surface area of attack by turning off most of those controls by default and letting users only turn them on if they need them. The feature makes it not interesting for the hackers to go after this legacy code that shouldn't be exposed to the Internet in the first place."

So we've enhanced the functionality of IE by ramping up the number of programmers on the project, which is a normal function of software development at Microsoft but I can't give you specifics, to add new features to IE7... new features like... ActiveX Opt-In (tm), with ActiveX Opt-In, we've enhanced the rich browsing experience the users are used to by increasing the security model of the IE7 browser functionality through better security measures.

And these security measures are?

We turned the problematic ActiveX controls off.

But wait how this is new functionali...

Top. Men.

Security...

"The primary driver behind expanding the reach of IE7 to Windows XP was security," and again, "The additional functionality is only one half of the equation; the other half is security."

Hmm... I wonder where they got the idea that IE wasn't secure enough? *cough*Firefox*cough*

I guess competition is good, since now people know what they are missing. Finally someone is, in a small way, asking Microsoft to step up the quality of their products.

Woo hoo

MS Guy: We added tabbed browsing and upped our CSS support to what was published in 2000.

Every web dev on earth: Good for you, now how about DOM2?

MS Guy: But... but... tabbed browsing!

Re:Woo hoo

MS Guy: We added tabbed browsing and upped our CSS support to what was published in 2000.

There'd be hell to pay if the MS guy actually claimed that - they are still missing whole sections of CSS 2, published in May 1998 [w3.org]. Granted, Internet Explorer 7.0 has improved support, but it's still missing, e.g. generated content [w3.org] and tables [w3.org].

You'll be pleased to know, however, that Internet Explorer 7.0 finally has complete support for CSS 1 [w3.org], published in 1996. So let's all welcome Microsoft to ten years ago!

Obviously no questions from the web team

Because if any one of the questions had been by any person ever asked to design a site it would have included something like the following:

Hi fucktard, are you bunch of fucktards ever going to fucking support the goddman fucking standard like bloody PNG and position: fixed and other basic stuff?

Who cares about security, if windows users did they wouldn't use windows. Who cares about hot new features. If people wanted cutting edge they wouldn't use windows. Sadly all those windows users do want websites that work in their browser so you are stuck supporting the crap that is IE.

It is very simple, very basic support for simple standards that IE just isn't capable of it. I can only think of the following reasons, A, they are really just not capable of it. MS can't hire any people who can hack up PNG support or do proper CSS. B, they want to hold the web back so they can launch their own new version. C, they want to wind me up and get me an ulcer.

Not that it matters ifI IE7 becomes a passable browser (yeah I considered the possibility that IE7 might become a good browser but who am I kidding) we will still have to support craptastic IE6 for years to come. Hell IE5 only now is starting to disappear.

If you are not a webdesigner you cannot understand.

You can make a beautifull page that truly shines that the customer finds enchanting and the users drool about and then you test it in IE and it all falls to pieces.

Ajax is the new buzzword so lets us that as an example to show how bad IE is. First the code for a real browser (anything not produced by MS):

if (!xmlHttp && typeof XMLHttpRequest != 'undefined') {
xmlHttp = new XMLHttpRequest();
}

Oh and line 1 and 3 are only there to keep IE happy. 2nd line would be all that is needed if you coded only for real browsers. But for IE you need that while IF statement. PLUS:

/* Create a new XMLHttpRequest object to talk to the Web server */
var xmlHttp = false;
/*@cc_on @*/
/*@if (@_jscript_version >= 5)
try {
xmlHttp = new ActiveXObject("Msxml2.XMLHTTP");
} catch (e) {
try {
xmlHttp = new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP");
} catch (e2) {
xmlHttp = false;
}
}
@end @*/

The code is from IBM btw so I figure it is pretty pretty efficient example.

Can you start to understand why IE is hated so much by web developers?

No doubt IE7 will cause this simple code to expand yet more.

For my own personal sites I have long since stopped adding IE support. Get a real browser or fuck off. Sadly that is not acceptable in business sites. Not even the customer service section.

So next time you ask a fucking IE developer questions less sucking up please and more 'are you finally going to do some real work or do I have to get a contract on your kids'.

IE, because Bill Gates hates the net.

Re:Obviously no questions from the web team

Because if any one of the questions had been by any person ever asked to design a site it would have included something like the following:

Well no, seeing as they've already fixed everything you mention: PNG [msdn.com], position: fixed [msdn.com], native XMLHttpRequest [msdn.com]. Have you tried the latest beta?

Oh and line 1 and 3 are only there to keep IE happy. 2nd line would be all that is needed if you coded only for real browsers.

Nonsense. Those lines are there to not break for any browsers that don't support native XMLHttpRequest objects. That includes quite a few versions of quite a few browsers.

No doubt IE7 will cause this simple code to expand yet more.

Internet Explorer 7 includes a native XMLHttpRequest object so it acts exactly like all the other browsers and you don't need the extra code that Internet Explorer 6 and below does.

Heh, what kept you, MS?

BN: The browser landscape has changed a lot in the past two years. Security threats, RSS and AJAX, for example. Where does Microsoft see the market headed and is IE7 a pioneer in this area or a follower? On the outside, it seems like many of the new IE7 features have long been offered in alternate browsers. Is Microsoft playing catch up or are you breaking new ground?

GS: I think you can make a fair case that we're doing a little of both. There were clearly some areas that the early adopters had been using in alternative products for a while. Tabs is probably the primary one. And we fielded a number of questions and even complaints from customers saying "When are you going to give us tabbed browsing in IE." Now we've done that; IE7 has a very, very good tab implementation. There are many users out there who are still using IE6 and have never tried tabbed browsing, and we think when they get exposed to it in IE7 they'll think it's very cool.

I had to laugh when I read this. It's nice to see MS catching up with what we've been using for years. Welcome to the party, guys! you're only several years late! :o) The fact reamins IE will never be as innovative as Firefox, simply because it isn't open source. It will never have the vast amount of features that FF has, nor will it be as customisable, because the only people who can make IE a better browser are the minority who work for MS. I think they will have a hard battle trying to get people back who made the switch away from IE. Anyway, good luck to em. This may actually make IE into a half decent browser. Perhaps MS can learn from this, in that a little competition is a *good* thing? Not that I'd ever be trying it anytime soon - it does not look like there will be a version of IE7 for Windows 2000 and Linux.

haha, but seriously, folks

"In the early days, we admit, we focused more on the power and stability than on the security."

Might wanna focus a little harder, man. =O

Public Vista Beta

We'll have similar dates for a more public beta of Windows Vista

Does this mean we might be able download and run a Vista beta legally? You can normally find the betas on p2p or bit torrent, but it'd be interesting if they actually released it with an expiration date for public download. While I'm sure it wouldn't be stable, it might be cool to mess around with under dual boot or on an extra machine.

Microsoft has a strange definition of "security"

I know that here at Slashdot I'm not the only one that whenever I download a Microsoft "security upgrade," the first thing I do is turn off all the crap that Microsoft puts in as "security."

Putting in things that pop up on your screen asking you if you really want to do this, or if you noticed that it did something, or that you haven't turned on something or you haven't updated something is not my definition of security.

My definition of security is to fix the problem, not put up caution tape and flashing lights around the problem.

It is no wonder I find myself using Linux more and more often these days...

It's more than just the tabs

When telling friends about Firefox, and why to use it, I've always mentioned the tabbed browsing first, and then noted that it's more secure than IE. Sure, there's a ton of other stuff that FF "does", but those were the two things, the selling points if you will, that I wanted to show them. "Tabbed browsing, man! You'll never surf the same way again!"

But after trying IE7, I've realized there's so much more to the experience. Tabs are a given, but FF seems to do them so much better. It's faster, snappier, cleaner. I come to accept the security as a given. Even in IE7, I wouldn't go to half the sites I do in FF. IE still doesn't seem to handle popups as well as FF, I've come to rely on the the Adblock extension which makes the browsing experience so much better. Pages load faster in FF. Little things like Find-As-You-Type (why in the hell does IE still have the ctrl-F dialog box that pops up, and doesn't wrap around the page? Up or Down??). I think I'm realizing that the EXTENSIONS in FF are what makes it great. Just the handful of ones I have installed make my browsing experience that much better, and I take for granted what I can do, and I don't notice this until trying to do the same in IE7. Why can't I rearrange tabs in IE? Ctrl-tab doesn't cycle how I would like it, but what can I do? In FF, I just find an extension. Plus, IE7 is ugly. I can change the theme in FF.

I think the only thing IE7 is really going to do is get an installed base of "secure" IE out there - all the Joe Schmoes that don't care, power up their Dell nekkid to the cable modem, and check their email. Maybe this will help curb some of the stupid things that have resulted from the old IE versions. But in no way is IE7 even remotely close to the browser that Firefox is.

The worst part about IE 7 is...

All the kick ass features like tabbed browsing, making RSS popular (which is why I'm confused they say RSS isnt popular, but maybe thats just because MS doesnt support it so IE users dont even have a clue about it) that Firefox and Opera have made necessities for a browser anymore - ALL of that ruined when IE 7 "makes it popular" because all the "Click the E", "IE is the greatest" people that have never even heard of Firefox or Opera or hate it because the idiots think its all about killing off M$, will go and say "Oh, look at all this great shit M$ is copying off the other browsers and trying to make its users think M$ is the one that invented tabbed browsing, ect"...

ActiveX? Who uses it?

I've only seen two types of sites that consistently give me security warnings about ActiveX (SP2).

1. MS update pages
2. Pr0n and hax0r sites trying to install some weird "requirement" that is probably a trojan

So... Exactly why is it I need it again?

Competition, eh?

They pointed out a number of things we did in IE7 that they thought would be great to have in Firefox in the future. We think competition is good and it makes us feel good that they're watching what we're doing and offering some positive comments.
(Emphasis mine)

Need I say more?

Microsoft will revolutionize RSS

I guess RSS feeds will soon be able to exploit my win box :(

a good tab implementation?

we fielded a number of questions and even complaints from customers saying "When are you going to give us tabbed browsing in IE." Now we've done that; IE7 has a very, very good tab implementation.

He must be using a pretty significantly different version of IE7 than the Beta 2 preview that I am using, because the tab implementation on my version is pretty terrible. Because the tabs have to share space with 9 different buttons/menus, I can only have about 3-4 tab names become virtually indistinguishable. In a Firefox window of the same size, I can have at least 8 tabs showing before the titles begin to lose meaning. As far as I can tell, IE7's tab implementation is only useful for people who never plan to use more than 2-3 tabs at a time.

And who thought it was a good idea to hide the menu until I press the Alt key?

RSS and Usenet

Why wasn't the RSS spec designed from the get-go to duplicate the functionality in Usenet? It seems to me that a good RSS reader should have the basic functionality of a Usenet newsreader: threading, sorting (by author, date, etc), read vs unread, catchup, reply (if the feed allows comments), article expiration, etc.

In Mozilla Thunderbird, if you set up an RSS account for a Google group (using the atom 1.0 feed), it looks like a usenet subscription, except it's much more limited. If it's the same paradigm (except where the articles are hosted), why not the same functionality?

Browser/RSS

Am I the only person who finds RSS on browsers to be a bit pointless?

I use RSS, with Thunderbird. That's where the delivery of RSS makes sense to me, along with Mail and News. What I might call "passive delivery". It gives me a list of articles that I can go to or ignore, all while I'm doing something else.

A browser is "active delivery", stuff I want to go to right now.

one of my biggest pet peves about IE...

one of my biggest pet peves about IE is the way it handles MIME types (other browsers are probobly guilty of this to some extent too).

I cant find the RFC itself but I seem to recall that the standards for HTTP and MIME and stuff say that the client should treat what the server returns in the Content-Type header as authoratitive and not try to "guess" the content type from the filename or file contents. But, IE (and probobly other browsers although IE is the worst offender) ignores the spec and attempts to guess the file type from the filename and content anyway.

RSS...

RSS = Really Simple Syndication.

How on earth can you "revolutionize" something that's already Really Simple??


It would be like Microsoft just said, "Guess what, 2+2=4 was popularized by our competition, but we are the ones who really know what to use it for."

Internet: The Next Generation

IE7 has one advantage: As for some reason browser generations are coupled to IE releases the release of IE7 will mean that Forefox and Opera will instantly turn from sixth generation browsers into seventh generation browsers as they already do everything IE7 does.

And when Microsoft will announce that their browser now has almost-complete CSS2 support (somewhere around 2011) Firefox, Opera and probably even Lynx will watch the IE dev team in the backlights as they continue to boldly go where no browser has gone before...

Re:IE is Dead.

Well, it exploded. I would hope that it was dead. Luckily for us, Internet Explorer is still there to fill the gap created when Exploder went to visit Great Grandpa Mosaic.

Re:Anti French

Perhaps because the French are so insecure in their abilities that they must proclaim themselves at the forefront of technology, when in fact, they are not. Le courier?

Perhaps it is the smugness emoted by French speakers when their language is not used properly. These same French speakers find it all to easy to improperly use others' languages.

Perhaps because the French helped the Germans immensely by surrendering so easily. And then, after the Allies arrived, 'helped' to defeat the Germans.

Perhaps because the French think that they are a single race of people.

Or, maybe it is because Monty Python so successfully ridiculed the French.

Cheers

Re:IE is Dead.

Until something better comes along.

Re:IE is Dead.

Opera is too complicated!

Long live Lynx!

A Joke

For sale: WW II era French rife, never used, dropped only once.

Re:Anti French

He say that French not so forefront in computers. I think this racist.
You have no idea what the term racist means, do you? The French are a race just as much Nazi's were a "race" (whoo Godwin!)
Or I'm just feeding a troll. Whatever.

Re:IE is Dead.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but IE's "corpse" has over 40 billion dollars of reserved capital ensuring otherwise.

It doesn't matters if a browser is free or not...

It doesn't matters if a browser is free or not... as long as there are alternatives available.

The whole idea is that there is no lock-in. I can move to any platform, any machine, any hardware, any browser any time. And still everything will work the same for me (except for the few things which won't, but then almost all web-developers are carefull enough not to use things which will break their website on any browser).

Now with FireFox 'available', I won't mind using IE (if it has the right features to attract me as a user. A large majority of Firefox users use it because of features, not because its open source).

But I still pity the web-developers who have to ensure their websites work same with all browsers.

Re:Article from 2004!?

From the article: "February 17, 2006, 9:00 PM"

The 2004 link was from an older article. RTFS (Read the Frickin' Summary).