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.'"
Favorite release note... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Favorite release note... (Score:5, Funny)
Typos. Let me fix that for you.
'the most efficient way to destroy and mangle Web-based solutions.
Re:Favorite release note... (Score:3, Funny)
It's Microsoft. What the heck should he expect? Competence?
Re:Favorite release note... (Score:2)
Re:Favorite release note... (Score:2)
As a guess, Flight Simulator probably includes a help reader or other page reader that uses the IE engine internally.
Re:Favorite release note... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Favorite release note... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
"planned reliability" (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, but that gave me a chuckle. Reliability, compatibility and security are still in beta.
Re:"planned reliability" (Score:2)
Wishful Thinking (Score:2)
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
Re:Wishful Thinking (Score:2)
Re:Wishful Thinking (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wishful Thinking (Score:3, Interesting)
You must be new around here. Every time a new Microsoft OS comes out, someone bitches endlessly about killer app from 1992 not working any more.
Honestly, Microsoft is damned either way around here. On the one hand they break compatibility and a bunch of sysadmins chime and and bich about some custom app not working any more and they will refuse to upgrade their LAN, an
Let's see. (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
-Eric
Re:Let's see. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Let's see. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Let's see. (Score:2)
Re:Let's see. (Score:2)
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)
Re:Let's see. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Let's see. (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re:Let's see. (Score:2)
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)
Re:Let's see. (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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
3. Develop two separate sites
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.
Re:Let's see. (Score:2)
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)
Re:Let's see. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Let's see. (Score:3, Funny)
-Eric
Re:Let's see. (Score:2)
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)
Re:Let's see. (Score:2)
Konqueror doesn't support XHTML [kde.org].
Another option (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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
Cui bono? Who benefits? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cui bono? Who benefits? (Score:2)
The ACID Test (Score:5, Informative)
"...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."
Re:The ACID Test (Score:2)
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").
Re:The ACID Test (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? Because if what you describe were to happen then everyone would be playing catch up to Microsoft all of the time. The situation you describe would give IE a huge advantage over every other browser as IE would always be 100% compliant, and all the others would not be. Every change in IE would have to be implemented in other browsers after the IE release. Not to mention that Microsoft could add features that are proprietary or subject to a software patent and therefore not even implementable in other browsers. That is no basis for a 'standard', and why wouldn't Microsoft do this? After all it would give them dominance. It would have the potential to destroy any competition to IE, and give Microsoft carte blanche to dictate the future of the web. This is all bad, even if you love Microsoft.
Lets not even get into the fact that it would also involve Microsoft issuing clear documentation to their competitors as to what they have implemented in the first instance, which is unlikely. Now add to that the fact that some of IE's rendering quirks are as a result of bugs. Some are so well known that people write tutorials and how to's and offer code to cut-and-paste so you can fix issues without even the slightest inkling of what the problem is. More over some of these bugs have been fixed over time... So am I to understand that other browsers and their development teams should actually implement features in their browser that are bugs in another? Ridiculous.
What about issues where responses to certain code open up security vulnerabilities in IE, should they also be implemented in other browsers so that everyone gets a uniform experience? Didn't think so.
The W3C provides a set of standards that should be implementable by everyone, people making browsers should be using them and people coding websites should be using them. That way there are no problems for either party, and new features can be added in due time with due consultation of all the interested parties.
I will add however that if you are producing a web page and your code is 100% W3C compliant you usually only have a few - well documented issues to resolve. The real problems with how pages look in different browsers occurs when the page author is not 100% W3C compliant, and a page may then look great in one browser and terrible in another.
FUCK! (Score:3, Funny)
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)
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.
Re:FUCK! (Score:2)
Oops, my mistake: it was IE5/Mac that introduced DOCTYPE switching; the first Windows version to have it was IE6 in 2001.
Sorry :-)
Re:FUCK! (Score:2)
Re:FUCK! (Score:2)
In a Darwinistic sense, at least that would provide some hope to young webdevs.
Re:Let's see. (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Let's see. (Score:5, Informative)
Repeat after me: Acid2 is not a rigorous CSS compliance test. Passing Acid2 does not mean you support every aspect of some version of CSS. It was designed to catch a number of aspects that most browsers did not support as of a year ago.
I'll agree that Opera 9 supports more of CSS2.1 than Firefox 1.5, but I believe it also supports more of CSS 2.1 than Safari 2, which also passes Acid2.
As for "Where's Netscape?" -- present-day Netscape is a fusion of IE and Firefox. It uses the IE's Trident engine on some pages and Mozilla's Gecko engine on others. Previous versions of Netscape that have enough CSS support to consider were also Gecko-based.
Re:Let's see. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Let's see. (Score:3, Informative)
IE 7 is a Major Improvement (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:IE 7 is a Major Improvement (Score:2)
-IE 6
-IE 6 with a few bug fixes and new quirks (aka IE 7)
Re:IE 7 is a Major Improvement (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:IE 7 is a Major Improvement (Score:2)
As far as the rendering looking the same as IE 6, I would say you're probably full of crap.
Re:IE 7 is a Major Improvement (Score:2)
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.
Re:IE 7 is a Major Improvement (Score:4, Insightful)
You do realize how rediculous that statement is, right? It just makes you look stupid. If you want to bash MS and make stuff up to do so, feel free, but at least be a little less obvious about it.
If you have a bug, post a sample of the HTML here along with a screen shot (or detailed description) of the behavior your seeing. If I can verify it I will certainly make sure it gets into the bug tracker.
My hunch is that this you will fail to do this either by not responding at all, or by making up some reason why you can't post some example HTML.
Re:Let's see. (Score:2)
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)
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.
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)
Firefox rules. It was built from the ground up to AVOID the problems created by poor programming in IE.
Re:*Yawn* (Score:2)
Re:*Yawn* (Score:2)
Isn't that what public beta tries to quash? No doubt this IE beta phones home after every session to report stats and issues.
Re:*Yawn* (Score:2)
Which STILL seems to be better coded than IE.
And marijuana, why do you ask? =p
Finger in the security dike (Score:2)
-Eric
Re:Finger in the security dike (Score:2)
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.
Re:Finger in the security dike (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Off topic? (Score:2)
-Eric
Re:Off topic? (Score:2)
Uninstall (Score:5, Funny)
Wait, wait, wait. A version of IE you can actually uninstall? Did I miss something here?
Re:Uninstall (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Uninstall (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Uninstall (Score:2)
Just how much more web standards compliant is it? (Score:2)
Re:Just how much more web standards compliant is i (Score:2)
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.
Re:Just how much more web standards compliant is i (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:It's not that bad (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's not that bad (Score:2)
+1 Insightful
Re:It's not that bad (Score:4, Insightful)
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.)
Re:It's not that bad (Score:5, Insightful)
A "baseline" browser would be standards compliant and minimal, which IE7 is not.
-matthew
Re:It's not that bad (Score:3, Insightful)
-matthew
Re:It's not that bad (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re:It's not that bad (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's not that bad (Score:2)
Is that the box model problem that was sorted out in IE6, [microsoft.com] back in 2001?
XHTML DTD Parsing (Score:3, Interesting)
Still the slowest browser around (Score:3, Interesting)
nextgen of customized "browsers" (Score:2, Funny)
as I said yesterday... (Score:4, Informative)
Does IE7 support the <CANVAS> tag? (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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)
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.
Gag From Developers As Well (Score:2)
Changelog? (Score:3, Insightful)
Deploying FireFox via GPO (Score:2, Informative)
Does anyone know of a good way to push installations of FF via GPO? If so, are patches
Re:Deploying FireFox via GPO (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Deploying FireFox via GPO (Score:2)
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.
Re:Deploying FireFox via GPO (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Efficient? YES! (Score:2)
If by "Web-based solutions" you mean trojans, spyware, and other nefarious exploits then I whole-heartedly agree.
Re:or... (Score:2)
Re:I know someone who works... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Vista? (Score:5, Informative)
According to the announcement on the IE Team's blog: [msdn.com]