Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Microsoft Releases IE7 Beta 3 277

Kawahee writes "Microsoft has released IE7 Beta 3 to the public. From TechNet Flash: 'As a result of customer feedback, IE7 Beta 3 contains some feature changes in addition to the planned reliability, compatibility, and security improvements. If you've previously installed a beta of IE7, you should uninstall it before installing this release.' For the first time, the Administrator's Kit for Internet Explorer 7 is also available, which is described as 'the most efficient way to deploy and manage Web-based solutions.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Releases IE7 Beta 3

Comments Filter:
  • by peipas ( 809350 ) on Friday June 30, 2006 @12:19PM (#15637477)
    "If Flight Simulator 2004 stops responding after you have installed Internet Explorer 7 Beta, find the oleacc.dll file in the Flight Simluator folder and rename it to oleacc.old. Then restart Flight Simulator."
    • by Mayhem178 ( 920970 ) on Friday June 30, 2006 @12:22PM (#15637502)
      'the most efficient way to deploy and manage Web-based solutions.'

      Typos. Let me fix that for you.

      'the most efficient way to destroy and mangle Web-based solutions.
    • So did a part of IE7 come from Flight Simulator 2004? *scratches head*. Wait, is this a joke? How can a DLL inside the Flight Simulator folder mess with IE7, which is stored in a seperate folder? I could see this as an issue only if Flight Simulator is somehow in the PATH.
      • Other way around: IE7 interferes with Flight Simulator.

        As a guess, Flight Simulator probably includes a help reader or other page reader that uses the IE engine internally.
      • by JudasBlue ( 409332 ) on Friday June 30, 2006 @01:00PM (#15637816)
        This dll hooks the Flight Simulator app into the Active Accessiblity API [microsoft.com] which provides features for people with disabilities. While I haven't coded to the MS platform specifically for a very long time, unless something major has changed, it wouldn't be odd at all for parts of that API to be actually buried in the innards of IE. A very annoying MS trait, that; to bury parts of their APIs all over the place. Many things can be said of MS as a development platform, most of them bad from my perspective, but one thing it most definitely isn't is orthangonal.
        • by mcg1969 ( 237263 ) on Friday June 30, 2006 @02:28PM (#15638632)
          Actually, it seems to me that, in this case at least, there is a more benign explanation.

          I don't think the issue is that the AA API stuff is buried in the innards of IE7. The nature of the proposed fix suggests that the AA API stuff is now being moved to the system when IE7 is iinstalled, so that all applications can share it.

          Flight Simulator's version of the DLL is old and incompatible; so by moving it out of the way, FS 2004 can now access the centralized DLL.

          Yeah, messy, but if anything, it's a step towards orthogonality.
  • by Weaselmancer ( 533834 ) on Friday June 30, 2006 @12:22PM (#15637496)

    Sorry, but that gave me a chuckle. Reliability, compatibility and security are still in beta.

    • It is still in beta, but this is the final beta release of IE7 until the stable version is released later this year. So it is reasonable to expect that most of the features and security related features are implemented.
    • Sorry, but that gave me a chuckle. Reliability, compatibility and security are still in beta.

      What's funny is Microsoft is still not getting it. MOst of the security problems are part of features they implemented for convienence sake. They can't maintain compatability with these technologies without making IE 7 less secure, unless they implemented some complicated embedded sandbox, with might not work for every situation and would be an unreliable solution.

      Compatability, Security, Reliability. Pick two, Micr

      • Unfortunately they have picked 2. They seem to be Compatibility and Reliability. XP is pretty reliable and doesn't crash quite so much as its predicessors. Also, it seems to be pretty compatible, even with stuff that was only make to work on windows 95. Maybe even windows 3.1 stuff works. DOS games don't really run any more, which is a shame. However, the security thing throws everything else out the door, since all the spyware and worms that slip in tend to kill not only the reliablity, but the compat
      • by rhinocero ( 977815 )
        And then, whichever two they pick, they'll still get yelled at for lacking the third.
  • Let's see. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Inoshiro ( 71693 ) on Friday June 30, 2006 @12:22PM (#15637508) Homepage
    IE 7 still did not correctly implement the box model, positioning, all CSS1, all CSS2, or any CSS3. The same IE-specific parsing bugs for CSS are in place in IE 7.

    At this point, you have to ask; is it that the people at Microsoft are incapable of producing a specs-compliant rendering engine (when every [konqueror.org] one [mozilla.com] else [apple.com] in the world [opera.com] can?), that they are roped by backwards compatibility, or that they think people will see IE 6 + tabs as "good enough"?

    It's to the point where every site I make has 2 code paths: not IE, and the IE-specific overrides (up to an additional 20kb per page!).
    • Re:Let's see. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Friday June 30, 2006 @12:26PM (#15637553)
      Yeah, but let's not pretend that everyone else is able to meet specs and standards perfectly either. Try the ACID test with Firefox sometime and you'll see that MS aren't the only ones with problems in this area.

      -Eric

      • Re:Let's see. (Score:5, Informative)

        by Tweekster ( 949766 ) on Friday June 30, 2006 @12:33PM (#15637607)
        I think if a developer is working on ACID test conformity they are pretty close. Microsoft isnt even close to that point of worrying about that yet and looks like they wont ever be.
      • Re:Let's see. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by binary paladin ( 684759 ) <binarypaladin.gmail@com> on Friday June 30, 2006 @12:40PM (#15637658)
        You have got to be fucking kidding me. There's a difference between not being perfect on the ACID test and being... well... IE. This is not even in the same ball park. Not even the same sport. Not even the same planet.

        So Firefox only scored a 1500 on its SAT. IE is still wearing a helmet and drooling on itself as it takes the short bus back to Redmond. Seriously just... just don't even go there. IE is the biggest frustration on the planet right now to anyone who actually works in this industry.
        • Maybe somebody should make a Firefox ActiveX control for IE, then even the IE users could be somewhat standards compliant.
        • So, IE is Chris Farley, and Firefox is David Spade in "Tommy Boy II: There's Browsers in my Trousers!"

          How does this scene get reworked?

          Firefox: Oh that sounds good: melted chocolate inside the dash, that really ups the resale value.

          IE: I think you'll be okay here, they have a thin candy shell. 'Surprised you didn't know that.

          Firefox: I think your brain has a thick candy shell.

          IE: Your... Your brain has the shell on it.

          Firefox: Are you talking?
      • Re:Let's see. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by heinousjay ( 683506 ) on Friday June 30, 2006 @12:40PM (#15637664) Journal
        The ACID test has as much bearing on real world browser usage as my opinions on foreign policy have on Mexico's actions.
        • Re:Let's see. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ltbarcly ( 398259 ) on Friday June 30, 2006 @01:11PM (#15637892)
          That is just about the most fucked up analogy I've ever seen.

          First of all, "real world browser usage" is some sort of average of what happens when people use browsers on internet connected computers in "the real world", which I guess means "not in a laboratory" or something. Philosophy professors would fall down in seizures if forced to listen to something that poorly defined. "Mexico" is a place. The connection here is well beyond me.

          Now, are you saying that the Acid test doesn't effect "real world browser usage"? Because what does affecting "real world browser usage" even mean?

          Perhaps you mean that most browser makers don't shoot for acid test compliance, and therefore browser users aren't affected by this. You are wrong, since basically all non-ie browsers are working toward acid test compliance, and khtml/konqueror/safari already pass. So you would be stupid if you thought this, and I'm certainly not calling you a stupid idiot.

          Maybe you mean that the CSS tested by the acid test doesn't represent what you actually come across on the web. Now, this is accurate, but it may be a self fulfilling prophesy. Bad CSS support causes simple CSS usage, because people can't trust browsers to correctly render CSS the way it is written if they make it complex. IE has bad CSS support, therefore in "real world browser usage" people don't come across very much complex CSS. You conclude that the Acid test is irrelevant, because it test something that doesn't come up in practice. But as you see, that 'practice' is a result of the very bad CSS support the Acid test is trying to help browser makers correct.

          • Perhaps you mean that most browser makers don't shoot for acid test compliance

            I cannot claim to know exactly what the GP meant, but my reading of it thought he was refering to some peoples view that ACID2 is biased against MS. The issue was basically some of the authors of the original ACID test (and other outside parties) have accused the ACID2 of basically being used as a marketing tool against MS. Thier view on this is basically the original ACID test was built by asking "what are the most important
            • Re:Let's see. (Score:2, Insightful)

              by heinousjay ( 683506 )
              All I really meant by it is that ACID2 (mis)uses obscure techniques to deliberately break browsers. It has no bearing on how people actually make webpages, and the techniques it does use are so out of line with the norm that we don't even need them.

              It's simply not a grave situation. It would be nice if all browsers worked the same, but I'm not an idealist by profession, and I certainly don't give additional point to things based on their obscurity. That's one geek trait I've never picked up.
          • "and khtml/konqueror/safari already pass."

            Yeah, and it was great competition...

            "iCab and Konqueror almost passed (and claimed to pass) before Opera, but they both failed to apply one of the styles required by the test, and as a result they displayed a scrollbar even though they shouldn't. This was fixed in later releases, after the release of Opera."

            From: http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/acid/ [howtocreate.co.uk]

            I do love a good race!

            B.
          • Re:Let's see. (Score:3, Interesting)

            by CastrTroy ( 595695 )
            I think what he's saying is that just because the browser passes the ACID test doesn't mean that it renders 100% of the pages correctly. As far as I'm aware Safari/Konq is the only browser that passed it fully. Yet, other than IE, it's the browser I hear most about when it comes to rendering errors. You could make a program correctly renders the input of the ACID test. It wouldn't really look at the input, just read the file and output what it's supposed to. The ACID test doesn't test 100% compliance.
        • Re:Let's see. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by zaajats ( 904507 )
          The ACID test has as much bearing on real world browser usage as my opinions on foreign policy have on Mexico's actions.

          This isn't "Score:2, Funny, but rather "5, Insightful".

          Really, the ACID test is about using techniques as complicated (and pointless) as they get to break browsers, while real web dev is about making sites that work.

          A browser that passes the test is not automatically better than one that doesn't.

      • Re:Let's see. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by naelurec ( 552384 ) on Friday June 30, 2006 @12:47PM (#15637717) Homepage
        Yeah, but let's not pretend that everyone else is able to meet specs and standards perfectly either.
        Yah but I can develop a XHTML/CSS website to the standard, using one of the mentioned browsers (firefox, mozilla, konqueror, safari, opera, etc..) and when I view that website in any other standards compliant browser on various operating systems, it looks VERY close if not the same. Then I view it in Internet Explorer and absolutely cringe.

        As a developer, you get the following options:

        1. Develop exclusively for Internet Explorer and don't care about any other browser (fortunately this mentality is dying due to the marketshare of alternative browsers). Other browsers tend to display these sites fairly well as long as there is no IE-specific crap (ie: active x)

        2. Develop a tables based design with limited CSS .. basically, throw out lots of accessibility related formatting, but limit overall development time. Seems like most sites favor this method.

        3. Develop two separate sites .. do browser detection (yuck) and serve up (at minimum) a separate CSS doc for Internet Explorer than for all other current browsers. Works ok until you realize the incompatibilities between different versions of IE and end up having to do version checks and maintain many separate layouts.

        4. Develop to the standard and if IE can't display it properly, oh well.. (not terribly useful for most sites).

        Its absolutely aggervating as a web developer to not only learn a standard and code to the standard, but end up having to learn the "IE" way and all the various hacks and workarounds (I believe Microsoft refers to this type of crap as "shims").. when working on a new layout, its not unrealistic to end up having to spend twice as long just to make a standards compliant XHTML/CSS design work in IE.. Its a shame because *most* developers simply can't devote the time ($$) and as a result, webpages are not standards compliant, less accessible and harder to maintain.
        • only a 'webmaster' would deride having to program for different situation.
          Jeez, it's not hard at all.
          I would like to see you try and develop any cross OS application in a compiled language!
          • Re:Let's see. (Score:5, Informative)

            by bunratty ( 545641 ) on Friday June 30, 2006 @01:16PM (#15637934)
            But the web is supposed to be a cross-platform environment from the ground up. For the most part, I treat it that way, and just let pages look suboptimal in IE. If someone complains how a page looks in IE, I just "dumb down" the page so IE can understand how to format it better.
            • Re:Let's see. (Score:3, Insightful)

              by westlake ( 615356 )
              I treat it that way, and just let pages look suboptimal in IE.

              I suppose it is safe to assume your clients don't mind losing 85-95% of potential hits to their competitor's IE-friendly web site.

              • by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *
                No kidding. I'd *LOVE* to be at a meeting where the web developer stood up and said "I know this new redesign looks like ass in IE, but that's IE's problem, not ours!"

                -Eric

          • only a 'webmaster' would deride having to program for different situation.

            There is a difference between having to have different versions of a program for different platforms and different versions of data for different platforms. Especially when all platforms "claim" to conform to a standard, but one obviously does not.

        • Re:Let's see. (Score:3, Informative)

          by jamesots ( 214246 )
          Option 5: Develop to the standard while being aware of IE's limitations. Use the '* html' hack to work around these problems. Not very difficult once you know how.
        • Yah but I can develop a XHTML/CSS website to the standard, using one of the mentioned browsers (firefox, mozilla, konqueror

          Konqueror doesn't support XHTML [kde.org].

        • Another option (Score:3, Insightful)

          You missed an option:

          5. Develop to standards and ignore IE.

          I know, I know, it's not an option for everybody. I'm lucky enough to work in an all-Mac company, so I've been able to ignore IE entirely for the internal sales web application I'm working on. It was a moment of pure joy when I realised I don't have to worry about IE this time. I was able to strip out a load of JavaScript and replaced it with simpler and easier to maintain CSS2 rules. And my code and layouts work first time!

          It's not an option for mo
        • CSS is overrated (Score:3, Interesting)

          by nmg196 ( 184961 ) *
          I'm a web developer and the main reason I don't use CSS exclusively isn't because of poor browser support or rendering bugs, but CSS itself.

          CSS is really really annoying. Sometimes you just need to use tables because even with a good standards compliant browser like Safari, it's just not possible to do what you want with CSS.

          Things which use to be REALLY easy with tables in quirks mode (like a 3 column layout, 100% high with a header and footer) are almost impossible to implement using CSS. There are a mult
      • by jbn-o ( 555068 ) <mail@digitalcitizen.info> on Friday June 30, 2006 @01:03PM (#15637836) Homepage
        Comparing anything to perfection is a false dichotomy because nothing is perfect. The question the grandparent poster is asking is better answered by asking oneself cui bono—who benefits? Then you'll see that as long as a proprietor can keep open standards from taking hold, that proprietor benefits. If the most popular browser were to become a free software browser, such as Firefox, you'd see Microsoft change their browser implementation to better conform to standards because they wouldn't be able to compete with broken-by-design software.
        • Nothing may be perfect, but you can acheive the best possible with reference to a clearly defined standard. For the question, "what is two plus two?" "four" is the perfect answer, given the standard of human mathematics. For CSS implementation, complying completely to all of the CSS specification is perfect.
      • The ACID Test (Score:5, Informative)

        by ThinkFr33ly ( 902481 ) on Friday June 30, 2006 @01:25PM (#15638021)
        Here is what Microsoft has to say [msdn.com] about IE 7 and the ACID test:

        "...I've seen a lot of comments asking if we will pass the Acid2 browser test published by the Web Standards Project when IE7 ships. I'll go ahead and relieve the suspense by saying we will not pass this test when IE7 ships. The original Acid Test tested only the CSS 1 box model, and actually became part of the W3C CSS1 Test Suite since it was a fairly narrow test - but the Acid 2 Test covers a wide set of functionality and standards, not just from CSS2.1 and HTML 4.01, selected by the authors as a "wish list" of features they'd like to have. It's pointedly not a compliance test (emphasis added) (from the Test Guide: "Acid2 does not guarantee conformance with any specification"). As a wish list, it is really important and useful to my team, but it isn't even intended, in my understanding, as our priority list for IE7."
        • ...the Acid 2 Test covers a wide set of functionality and standards, not just from CSS2.1 and HTML 4.01, selected by the authors as a "wish list" of features they'd like to have.

          This is incorrect. It is not a "wish list" of desired features. It is a test for compliance with often missing parts of several standards, like graceful handling of certain incorrect code.

          It's pointedly not a compliance test (emphasis added) (from the Test Guide: "Acid2 does not guarantee conformance with any specification").

    • FUCK! (Score:3, Funny)

      Still... no... proper... box... model...? Not even and... option or something?

      Well, let me just say, as a web developer... FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK! FUCK YOU FUCKING MICROSOFT FUCKERS! ROT IN HELL YOU CHEAP IMITATION HACKS WHO COULDN'T PROGRAM YOURSELVES OUT OF A FUCKING BOX! (Whatever that means.)

      Okay. I needed that. Seriously, what the fuck have they been doing all this time? Pounding their dicks with mallets?

      How long has this piece of shit been in development? If this browser is any indication
      • Re:FUCK! (Score:5, Informative)

        by NickFitz ( 5849 ) <slashdot@@@nickfitz...co...uk> on Friday June 30, 2006 @01:09PM (#15637873) Homepage

        IE will use the W3C box model if you include an appropriate DOCTYPE in your page (as per the standards) thereby triggering "strict" rendering mode. The box model is only broken if you use"quirks" mode rendering.

        This has been the case since IE5.5.

        It's also how Firefox, Opera and Safari - and probably every other CSS-supporting browser of any note - cope with all the malformed HTML/CSS out there.

        • Oops, my mistake: it was IE5/Mac that introduced DOCTYPE switching; the first Windows version to have it was IE6 in 2001.

          Sorry :-)

      • The IE team should die of gonorrhea and rot in hell.
        Now come on, that's not fair at all to the poor women who had to sleep with IE devs to give them gonorrhea in the first place.
      • Seriously, what the fuck have they been doing all this time? Pounding their dicks with mallets?

        In a Darwinistic sense, at least that would provide some hope to young webdevs.
    • Re:Let's see. (Score:3, Informative)

      by Kelson ( 129150 ) *
      IE 7 still did not correctly implement the box model, positioning, all CSS1, all CSS2, or any CSS3.

      Of course, no one else [webdevout.net] implements all of CSS2 either. Though everyone else seems to be pretty far ahead of MSIE in that respect.

    • by ThinkFr33ly ( 902481 ) on Friday June 30, 2006 @12:44PM (#15637685)
      The IE 7 team has talked in length [msdn.com] about the changes to the rendering engine and the decisions they've made.

      Some particularly interesting posts are:

      Standards and CSS in IE [msdn.com]
      Improving the CSS 2.1 strict parser for IE 7 [msdn.com]
      Layout Complete Announced at MIX06 [msdn.com]
      What's New for CSS in Beta 2 Preview [msdn.com]
      The prolog, strict mode, and XHTML in IE [msdn.com]
      All your are belong to us [msdn.com]
      Call to action: The demise of CSS hacks and broken pages [msdn.com].

      It's not perfect, but it's a major improvement in basically every way over IE 6.
      • so... tdoes this mean that we'll have 2 flavours of IE to support now?
        -IE 6
        -IE 6 with a few bug fixes and new quirks (aka IE 7)
      • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Friday June 30, 2006 @01:50PM (#15638243)

        It's not perfect, but it's a major improvement in basically every way over IE 6.

        Wow, seven different press releases/comments from MS. Well, someone just installed it on a test box, so let me take a look at the HTML I'm outputting. Golly looks just the same as IE6. IE fails to show either the CSS or XHTML formatting it failed to before. Now lets take a look in some other browsers. Firefox works. Opera works. Safari works.

        They can talk all they want, but they still haven't managed to do anything. Talk is cheap. Luckily, as this is content that only network security experts will be looking at, nobody cares is it is unformatted for IE users since none of them would touch the bloody thing.

        • Those aren't press releases. They're developers actually doing the work on IE 7.

          As far as the rendering looking the same as IE 6, I would say you're probably full of crap.
          • Those aren't press releases. They're developers actually doing the work on IE 7.

            And this makes it not a press release how? It is all public relations bullshit.

            As far as the rendering looking the same as IE 6, I would say you're probably full of crap.

            Try it yourself. Just write up a XHTML definition and a few CSS2 styles.

    • At this point, you have to ask; is it that the people at Microsoft are incapable of producing a specs-compliant rendering engine (when every one else in the world can?), that they are roped by backwards compatibility, or that they think people will see IE 6 + tabs as "good enough"?

      None of the above.

      Given IE's prevalence, it is to MS's benefit to keep it broken, to maintain the vicious cycle of forcing web designers through the rigamarole of compensating for IE's standard violations and thus encouraging the
    • Re:Let's see. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Bogtha ( 906264 ) on Friday June 30, 2006 @02:03PM (#15638371)

      IE 7 still did not correctly implement the box model, positioning, all CSS1, all CSS2, or any CSS3. The same IE-specific parsing bugs for CSS are in place in IE 7.

      Exactly which box model bugs are you talking about? The most common one that people complain about is whether width includes padding or not. Unfortunately, despite everybody still complaining about it, Microsoft fixed that bug in 2001 when they released Internet Explorer 6.

      I believe they still get error-handling wrong, which means they don't conform to CSS 1, however they have implemented the last remaining functionality of CSS 1 with Internet Explorer 7, so if you write valid CSS 1 that shouldn't be a problem.

      As for CSS 3, they've added a few CSS 3 selectors [msdn.com].

      You are wrong when you claim that Internet Explorer 7 has the same parsing bugs; for instance, they've fixed [msdn.com] the * html and _property hacks.

      is it that the people at Microsoft are incapable of producing a specs-compliant rendering engine (when every one else in the world can?)

      None of the browsers you point to even implement HTML properly. Compliancy is obviously too much to expect from anybody.

      I agree that Internet Explorer is miles behind other browsers, and I agree that it's really frustrating, but the specific claims you are making are false.

  • *Yawn* (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheDarkener ( 198348 ) on Friday June 30, 2006 @12:22PM (#15637509) Homepage
    I'm sure there are improvements with this new release, but how much can you really improve upon a structurally flawed program? It's like Vista... They always tout "It's the BEST Windows EVER" and "The most SECURE OS!" and all that garbage...but what happens 2 weeks after it's public release? Flaws. Flaws, flaws, horribly unexplainable flaws that should have been caught with some basic QA *before* release.

    Firefox rules. It was built from the ground up to AVOID the problems created by poor programming in IE.
    • Well, of course. Microsoft can't improve IE too much, because then there'd be nothing left to market the next version with.
    • what happens 2 weeks after it's public release? Flaws. Flaws, flaws, horribly unexplainable flaws that should have been caught with some basic QA *before* release.

      Isn't that what public beta tries to quash? No doubt this IE beta phones home after every session to report stats and issues.
  • It's good that MS is taking a more serious approach to security with IE and Windows Vista. But really, how much can they do when 2 security holes open up for every one they patch? It may be that the legacy code has just become too unwieldly to sustain.

    -Eric

    • You are probably right.
      What to you expect when you create software that put it's fingers into every other piece of software that you've created and vice versa.

      Everybody else creates MODULAR software where you can define where the application starts and end.
      IE, however, is inter-twined in the OS to avoid the "Bundling browser with the OS" ruling from years ago. Therefore, it is effectively designed by lawyers.
    • It's good that MS is taking a more serious approach to security with IE and Windows Vista. But really, how much can they do when 2 security holes open up for every one they patch?

      If they were serious about security they would spend some of their billions of dollars on hiring really good security people and implementing their suggestions. Little things like making the browser run in userspace. Implementing zones or jails, and not requiring local services to run on the network for normal operation. These a

  • Uninstall (Score:5, Funny)

    by jeffy210 ( 214759 ) on Friday June 30, 2006 @12:23PM (#15637519)
    "you should uninstall it before installing this release"


    Wait, wait, wait. A version of IE you can actually uninstall? Did I miss something here?
  • So IE7 Beta 3 for Windows XP is any more web standards compliant than the last version? I found it ironic that IE7 for Windows Vista displayed my website [creimer.ws] correctly.
    • I haven't seen any big differences between beta 2 and beta 3 (though of course there was a huge jump between IE6 and IE7 beta 2), but they did at least fix one obscure bug [hyperborea.org] I'd reported back in March.

      Under very specific circumstances, hovering over a link in IE7b2 could cause floated objects further up the page to disappear. Ironically, I discovered the bug on a page using a floated Get Firefox button. Yes, you read that right: a bug in IE caused a Firefox link to disappear.
    • IE7 is IE7 - it's the same code whichever operating system it's running on. As far as enhancements to standards support: the improvements to HTML and CSS support have been restricted to bug fixes since Beta 2, in which the major changes/improvements were introduced. Improvements to DOM support will probably come in a later version (7.5, 8, 8.5...).

      You can keep up with what they're doing on the IE Team's blog. [msdn.com]

  • It's not that bad (Score:5, Informative)

    by edmicman ( 830206 ) on Friday June 30, 2006 @12:42PM (#15637672) Homepage Journal
    I know the Slashdot crowd will poo-poo on this release, the zealots will shout for their favorite browser, etc. And for the most part, they're right. The media seems oblivious to this, but I've stopping thinking of IE7 as a competitor to all of the other browsers. Instead, I see it as what a baseline browser that's integrated into the OS should be.

    Yes, IE7 is basically where Firefox and everyone else was at years ago. Yes, it has tons of room for improvement. But for the unwashed masses out there, having a PC that comes with IE7, or being forced to upgrade as part of Windows Update is a good thing. Sure, I could install Windows from scratch, open up Write, and begin my novel. Or, if I want and need more features, I can choose from Word, Open Office, WordPerfect, etc. Same goes for the browsers. IE7 will give the average user a higher starting point, but the alternatives will always do the job better, and I don't think IE7 will stop the adoption that Firefox is seeing. Who is seriously going to go back to IE after using and customizing Firefox to how they want it?

    I use Firefox at home, and partially at work, but I also have to use IE for our Intranet development (it's easier for now, and they're too ingrained to IE for me to start using FF full time. If something doesn't work right, I'd rather not have to tell the "well, it works right in FF, it's your problem"....anyway....). I grabbed the IE7b3 yesterday and have found it leaps and bounds better that IE7b2. Pages load faster (still not as fast as FF), the UI is snappier (still not as snappy as FF), and some of the quirks of before have been fixed. It's better than IE7b2, and tons better than IE6. Is it going to replace FF at all? Heck, no.
    • by mcmonkey ( 96054 ) on Friday June 30, 2006 @12:58PM (#15637799) Homepage
      Instead, I see it as what a baseline browser that's integrated into the OS should be.

      Buddy, you gotta lay off the Redmond kool-aid. A true baseline for a browser that's integrated into the the OS is...nothing. Null. The empty set.

      There should be no web browser that's integrated into the OS. There are many reasons for this, but I'll name one: security. Browsing the web is an inherently insecure operation. Why would you (for any technical reason) integrate that function into the core of your OS?

      You wouldn't. IE is integrated into Windows for marketing reasons. Until that integration is done away with, we know MS isn't serious about all their security talk.

      Would you integrate your digestive system into your hands? Eating would be so easy--you'd just have to touch stuff! What that's? Sometimes you touch stuff that isn't safe to eat? Here, put this 'patch' on.

      • I wish I had moderation points today.

        +1 Insightful

      • by Kelson ( 129150 ) * on Friday June 30, 2006 @01:52PM (#15638263) Homepage Journal
        There should be no web browser that's integrated into the OS.

        I think you're using different meanings for "integrated." You mean firmly entrenched with tendrils running throughout the system. I suspect the GP post meant pre-installed (i.e. integrated in the installer and/or the user experience).

        There are a number of reasons that some web browser should be pre-installed with a new computer or OS install. The foremost is this: A whole lot of software -- browsers included -- is distributed online these days. A built-in browser of some sort is necessary just to get your browser of choice. Care to guess how many Slashdotters have used IE primarily to download Firefox?

        You could, of course, get by with a minimal browser like Off By One (and we're back to the WordPad vs. Word analogy), as long as it has the ability to fill out forms and download files.

        The alternative is to rely on CD-ROM distribution just to get online. (And don't suggest command-line FTP as the way to let people download Firefox/IE/Opera/what-the-hell-ever. You can figure it out, I can figure it out, but most people don't want to mess around with the command-line when there's a simpler way to do it.)

    • by misleb ( 129952 ) on Friday June 30, 2006 @01:06PM (#15637857)
      I know the Slashdot crowd will poo-poo on this release, the zealots will shout for their favorite browser, etc. And for the most part, they're right. The media seems oblivious to this, but I've stopping thinking of IE7 as a competitor to all of the other browsers. Instead, I see it as what a baseline browser that's integrated into the OS should be.


      A "baseline" browser would be standards compliant and minimal, which IE7 is not.

      -matthew
    • Instead, I see it as what a baseline browser that's integrated into the OS should be.

      first, a browser shouldn't be integrated into the OS. secondly, a "baseline browser", if anything, should RENDER CORRECTLY. *That's* the baseline. Then, if people want tabs, extensions, or other add-on features, they can start looking around.

      the IE dev team has had plenty of time to fix their broken software, and they haven't. they left the rendering engine a pile of poo, and either intentionally wasted their time o

    • by TheoMurpse ( 729043 ) on Friday June 30, 2006 @01:38PM (#15638132) Homepage
      But for the unwashed masses out there, having a PC that comes with IE7, or being forced to upgrade as part of Windows Update is a good thing. Sure, I could install Windows from scratch, open up Write, and begin my novel.
      Wrong. Your analogy would only be accurate if Write took random (but not all!) letters you typed and converted them to leet. Then it would do font sizes wrong so that if you opened it up in OpenOffice or even Word the font sizes would be different, and the layout would be completely screwed up. However, because the average user has a great baseline, they wouldn't feel the need to upgrade to Word. Then, when they passed on the documents to other people who opened them with standards-compliant word processors (observing accurate measurements and font sizes) the documents would be screwed up, and decide it must be their word processor's fault, since "my coworker would never do something that stupid as type in leet in a too-large font size".

      No, having IE come on a system at all is bad, as it encourages developers to continue to use Microsoft-only hacks that blocks users of other browsers from enjoying the sites. Take for example, me: I work for the University of Texas at Austin Liberal Arts IT department developing websites. Last year, I spent a semester building a website for learning American Sign Language for the students and for anyone in the general public who wished to use the video resources as a study guide. Unfortunately, I spent more time making the site work on IE because of its failed standards compliance than I did on actually building the standards-compliant site. To top it off, all the work I put into making it work in IE only made it work in IE 6! It will still fail in IE 7, so when users upgrade, I'll have to make updates to a static site! This has wasted my time, taxpayers' money, students' chances at education; and has harmed the ASL community because it is one less resource (and boy, is it a good one!) for ASL-as-a-second-language people to use in their studies. A standards-compliant page is necessary in order to support alternative browsers and provide a common page that, in theory, all browsers (hopefully IE one day) will display correctly. I can't just code to IE because, as we are seeing, IE changes; standards remain the same (margins are margins are margins, not padding).

      In short, the existence of IE on users' computers hurts society economically and educationally.
  • XHTML DTD Parsing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by charleste ( 537078 ) on Friday June 30, 2006 @12:43PM (#15637683)
    But no mention in the FA as to whether or not IE will support the DTD specs from W3C (currently, IE 6 does not ignore entities that have the IGNORE attribute, hence XHTML 1.1 DTDs from W3C are not parsed - they throw errors.

     
  • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Friday June 30, 2006 @12:53PM (#15637753) Homepage Journal
    It seems to be slightly faster than b2 was, but it still takes longer to load than firefox (which is hilarious, because I consider firefox to be one slow-starting mofo) and loads pages about half as fast. Probably it's a checked build or something, but it's unacceptable. I'm uninstalling and going back to IE6 (for those things for which I need IE) as soon as I feel like rebooting.
  • Internet Explorer Administration Kit 7 Beta 2 Looks like a real joy. Now every ISP can create their own rambling piece of crap like the Yahoo! browser [google.com]!
  • by Tumbleweed ( 3706 ) * on Friday June 30, 2006 @12:59PM (#15637808)
    It's Still Fisher-Price [slashdot.org]. :(
  • by cr0sh ( 43134 ) on Friday June 30, 2006 @01:05PM (#15637848) Homepage
    I find this tag to be one of the more interesting "new" HTML tags. From what I understand, the Safari browser (OSX?) was the first to have it, then (IIRC) Opera, then finally the Firefox browser. IE6 doesn't support it, although people have been able to create some interesting workarounds using SVG.


    I just like the possibilities this tag brings to browsers and web applications, as well as (simple) gaming. However, I haven't heard anything about it working (or not) in any of the IE7 betas that have been released yet...

    • No, it doesn't (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Kelson ( 129150 ) * on Friday June 30, 2006 @01:26PM (#15638027) Homepage Journal
      Changes to IE7's rendering engine have been primarily in fixing bugs and catching up to established standards like CSS. <CANVAS> came out of WhatWG (or, more precisely, came out of work Apple was doing to make Dashboard widgets possible, then submitted to WhatWG), which, so far, the IE team appears to be ignoring.

      Since WhatWG's work does seem to be catching on, with Opera, Firefox and Safari all implementing features and not just talking about it, there might be some pressure on Microsoft to start adding support in IE 7.5 or IE 8.
  • Gag (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by Wylfing ( 144940 )
    As a result of customer feedback...

    Whenever I see that in a statement from Microsoft, it is always code for "We have totally ignored the wishes of our customers and instead focused on lock-in, the breaking of standards, and the complete bollixing of normal user interface conventions."

    Meh.

    • What is just as odd is that they appear to be ignoring developer feedback as well. A lot of web developer time is sunk trying to resolve problems between IE and other browsers. Why do these complaints fall on deaf ears? They should be doing a lot more to satisfy developer needs and wants than users because ultimately if dev time is lost trying to develop apps on their technology and it turns out too be too costly then fewer apps are made.
  • Changelog? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rinisari ( 521266 ) on Friday June 30, 2006 @01:26PM (#15638028) Homepage Journal
    I saw this earlier when I was downloading the IE 6 Administrator's Kit. I searched around for almost an hour trying to find a good, old-fashioned changelog listing the changes since Beta 2. Anyone found that yet?
  • I'm an I.T. Director at a large firm, and I've been eager to try deployment of Firefox to our corporate desktops. However, I've been stymied by this as there seems to be no MSI installation package for FF. Our desktop users are locked down and cannot install apps, so deploying FF via login script is not an option. I'd love to be able to push this out via GPO's, but with no MSI installer, that's more or less impossible.

    Does anyone know of a good way to push installations of FF via GPO? If so, are patches
    • A quick search for "firefox msi" gives this site [frontmotion.com] as a result for what you are looking for. I could have sworn that Mozilla posted MSI's for Firefox nowadays, but I guess I was wrong.
      • Thanks, I'll give this a try!

        I'd love to know why Mozilla still refuses to publish an MSI installer! I know many other I.T. Directors like me that would love to push out FF but are unable to do so because (a) Mozilla doesn't provide an MSI package and (b) pushing this out via SMS/Altiris/etc. is a royal pain to configure. Why is Mozilla being to tragically and stupidly stubborn about this? It's only hurting FF adoption.
    • http://www.frontmotion.com/Firefox/ [frontmotion.com]

      Not official from Mozilla, but well-maintained and not a hack. I wouldn't dismiss it because it's not "official"; the whole point of open-source is third parties being able to do things with the code.
  • "the most efficient way to deploy and manage Web-based solutions."

    If by "Web-based solutions" you mean trojans, spyware, and other nefarious exploits then I whole-heartedly agree.

If I'd known computer science was going to be like this, I'd never have given up being a rock 'n' roll star. -- G. Hirst

Working...