Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Zarax on July 28, 2005, 05:33:48 am
-
I know you're a bunch of FireFox lovers, so you won't believe me...
:ha:
Anyways, for the unbiased among us here's some good news:
IE7 Rocks.
It's WAY faster (while still in beta), the loading speed is even better than firefox, I've never seen some website loading that fast, not to mention the app itself.
It's got better security for sure, with an integrated antìphishing feature... Spyware tests will follow.
The interface has been improved and is much more streamlined, while tabbed browsing integration could be better imho.
You can sign for the beta at http://connect.microsoft.com
If Windows Vista will be more or less at this level I think it will be a definite improvement over XP.
Microsoft got serious on IE again, the second browser race has started.
-
Are you one of the unbiased among us, then?
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Anyways, for the unbiased among us here's some good news:
IE7 Rocks.
The truly unbiased won't give a damn either way, since there are plenty good browsers out there and unbiased (but clued) people generally choose the one that does what they need it to.
What you really mean is, 'for those of us who are too lazy to go looking for a decent browser instead of just using the crap Microsoft provides by default'.
If IE7 is still integrated into the OS, it is still crap by definition. If they've made it totally seperate, I may switch back to IE.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Are you one of the unbiased among us, then?
It's not up to me to say that, I'm most likely biased on the opposite side but anyways that was more to invite people to test the thing themselves that doing any real propaganda, something that would be wasted here because "Micro$oft is evil"...
-
Originally posted by Descenterace
If IE7 is still integrated into the OS, it is still crap by definition. If they've made it totally seperate, I may switch back to IE.
Only if you have XP and above, though (IIRC).
Fortunately I couldn't give a **** about it; I switched to Firefox because IE6 (I think) kept crashing, ****ing up, etc, and have no intention of switching back. Once bitten, twice shy and all that.
-
Originally posted by Descenterace
The truly unbiased won't give a damn either way, since there are plenty good browsers out there and unbiased (but clued) people generally choose the one that does what they need it to.
What you really mean is, 'for those of us who are too lazy to go looking for a decent browser instead of just using the crap Microsoft provides by default'.
If IE7 is still integrated into the OS, it is still crap by definition. If they've made it totally seperate, I may switch back to IE.
It is separate in XP, in fact it uses a different codebase as it's more a Longhorn backporting than something derived from IE6.
May I remember you that if it wasn't for Microsoft you'll be most likely still paying for your browser?
-
Too little, too much bull****, too late.
FireFox works, and since I was forced to use it due to the IE crapness, I see no reason to go back.
It's not like I was waiting for IE to get better. I was just looking for something that works. I found it. The End.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
It is separate in XP, in fact it uses a different codebase as it's more a Longhorn backporting than something derived from IE6.
May I remember you that if it wasn't for Microsoft you'll be most likely still paying for your browser?
And if it wasn't for the Model T, we probably wouldn't be driving mass-produced cars - it doesn't mean we all want to drive a Model T, though, or that it was even a good car.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
I'm most likely biased on the opposite side
And bears most likely s**t in the woods :p
Originally posted by Zarax
May I remember you that if it wasn't for Microsoft you'll be most likely still paying for your browser?
Are you seriously dumb enough to believe that was because of some philanthropic effort on the behalf of MS?
MS entered the browsers wars because back then it looked like the internet was going to take over from the OS and become the most important thing a computer could do. Looking at it now it's obvious that was a load of crap but MS didn't understand the internet for a long time and when they did realise it was important they leap to all kinds of wrong conclusions about it (Deliberate attempts to poison Java because they saw it as a competitor was another).
IE was simply MS's attempt to gain a stranglehold on the internet and prevent it resulting in an OS neutral brave new world they feared. The fact that they were paranoid about it doesn't mean that they didn't attempt to corner the browser market purely on the grounds that it was good for MS to do so.
-
It's a good thing MS seems to wake up.
After all these years we want WORK! DEVELOPMENT!...and definitly NO MORE BLOATWARE!
I don't care if you can pack a million features into your program - I only need 5-8% of that - and would be glad if I could choose to NOT INSTALL or ASSIGN RESOURCES to the rest.
All that said it's a GOOD thing that MS is WORKING (remember folks the oxymoron thread? MS works?) on something that's aim is to dethrone Firefox.
Look's like the open-source turned out to be something quite potent and we finally have COMPETITION.
Of course it won't be like any competition before, as on one side we have the megacorporation that wants profit and its consumers back, while on the other side we have programmers who want software that works.
I don't care if MS's new OS and browser will suck - I can always go the 'nix/'nux way.
However if they DO make something good, that will be the best damn thing since Windows NT.
-
Two words regarding I.E7: User Agent. :wtf:
Edit: :lol: I love how that website doesn't render properly in FF or Deer Park. The proprietary(sp?) code for the header gradient makes it even funnier.
-
Huh. Well, if Windows 2000 worked would install on my SATA drive, I might try it out. But it won't, soooo looks like the only reason I'll be using this browser is if they make a Linux version.
-
Firefox is slow and doesn't work with a few websites, but the reason it is far superior to IE is the adblock plugin available for it. Until IE has something comparable, I won't be bothering with it.
-
Originally posted by Flaser
After all these years we want WORK! DEVELOPMENT!..
"I have 4 words for you...Developers!, Developers!, Developers!, Developers!"
:nervous:
on topic: I really don't care about IE.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
It is separate in XP, in fact it uses a different codebase as it's more a Longhorn backporting than something derived from IE6.
It HAS to be integrated at some level, since so many MS apps include HTML rendering.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Firefox is slow and doesn't work with a few websites, but the reason it is far superior to IE is the adblock plugin available for it. Until IE has something comparable, I won't be bothering with it.
The only problems I've ever come across with FF is where websites use M$ specific code. Which is just poor design.
-
Originally posted by Col. Fishguts
"I have 4 words for you...Developers!, Developers!, Developers!, Developers!"
Aren't you supposed to say that about 35 times? :p
-
Originally posted by ZylonBane
It HAS to be integrated at some level, since so many MS apps include HTML rendering.
http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=164302257
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1831451,00.asp
Shows evidence of Os integration between Vista and IE7.
Offhand, I think previous IEs were released for win95/98 to xp, so something for only Vista & XP Service Pack 2 would seem to be even more tightly integrated to specific API features, not less. If there's any decoupling, it's presumably in the sense of using middleware / wrappers around any Os-specific differences rather than direct access.
EDIT; Firefox has a bit of a large memory footprint and sluggish startup (both of which are as much down to not being shoved in as part of the OS as anything else), but its security is great (both in terms of malware and also pop up blocking, etc), tabbed browsing (IMO) kicks arse and I've never, ever had it crash. Plus, because it's OS, if IE7 actually adds any useful or novel functionality, it'll be rapidly implemented in Firefox.
-
I won't be saying anything until I've tested IE7. Signing up now... :p
EDIT: Damn! IE crashed on me while I was signing in.
-
:lol:
sibling rivalry?
-
Why do you need to sign up to download a browser? :wtf:
-
So that they can manipulate you more easily.
-
It's still a beta version. It's like GMail, only you don't have to be invited.
Darn it...when do I become a ship that's not an Apollo? :/
-
Well, until Microsoft releases IE7 for Linux, I'll be more excited about Firefox 1.1. :D
Particularly since Microsoft has no intention of fully supporting the CSS specifications for IE7. :blah:
-
<<; Odd..I signed up, but..I can't download it?
-
Originally posted by Zarax
I know you're a bunch of FireFox lovers, so you won't believe me...
:ha:
Anyways, for the unbiased among us
Originally posted by Zarax
The Best is Yet to Come
Microsoft User Network: Taking the Users into the Digital Decade
[color=66ff00]Zarax I don't want to sound harsh but posting both of these statements and then claiming no bias is more than a bit blind.
Firefox is open, if a security problem occurs it is quickly recorded and fixed, IE does not enjoy this level of security assurance due to Microsoft's well known history of putting off fixing a problem until they have no choice.
Firefox uses established and agreed upon protocols, IE does not. This is an intentional attempt by Microsoft to alienate users from browsers that appear not to work due to web designers using MS's enforced standards.
Firefox will always have a better feature set than IE as there are significant numbers of people who are willing to work on it. IE is limited by the number of people that Microsoft is willing to hire to do the job.
You can push load times as a big bonus but they're effectively nothing more than a tired attempt by those who support IE to try and give it some small measure of credence.
[/color]
-
From a Tom's Hardware article (http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050727_124905.html)
The privacy statement for Internet Explorer 7.0 beta lists a "phishing filter," which is said to be capable of warning users about the possibility that the Web site currently being visited is impersonating a trusted Web site. This feature is turned off by default, says the statement, but in order for it to be used properly, the Web site's address and other information about the user's computer, are sent to Microsoft for automatic evaluation.
Perhaps I'm paranoid, but I don't like the idea of Microsoft seeing all my browser habits. Good thing it's off by default, though then it's kinda useless for the users who need it most.
-
meh. i'll stick to my FF browser. Anyway i can't test it beacuse it can only be installed on a english version of XP
-
if((incomingUserUrl.site() == "www.firefox.com") ||
(incomingUserUrl.site() == "www.linux.com") ||
(incomingUserUrl.site() == "www.opera.com") ||
(incomingUserUrl.site() == "www.redhat.com") ||
(incomingUserUrl.site() == "www.mikerowesoft.com") ||
(incomingUserUrl.site() == "www.sun.com") ||
(incomingUserUrl.site() == "www.apple.com") )
//devnote 11/03/05 - need to find out who's suing us for antitrust in that particular week (SB)
//response 12/03/05 - we'll allocate 300MB of RAM. Not like the user can't afford to upgrade, after all.
//Oh, and shove in some notepad code below to prevent uninstalling. (BG)
{
//RPC
denyFutureUpdates(incomingUserUrl.getUserId());
reactivateSpyware(incomingUserUrl.getUserId());
turnOn****tyWidgets(incomingUserUrl.getUserId());
unleashEvilClippy(incomingUserUrl.getUserId());
crash();
}
else {
if(hellFrozeOver()) {
runStably();
}
}
-
Originally posted by Zarax
It is separate in XP, in fact it uses a different codebase as it's more a Longhorn backporting than something derived from IE6.
Then IE6 will still be running somewhere in the kernel, with all the problems that entails. Much of Windows' GUI is built on Internet Explorer.
Originally posted by Zarax
May I remember you that if it wasn't for Microsoft you'll be most likely still paying for your browser?
No, I wouldn't. I'd be using a free browser such as Firefox. Do you really think that Internet Explorer is solely responsible for triggering Linux browser development? And once you've got a full-featured Linux browser, someone's certain to port it to Windows simply because they can.
Finally, IE's memory footprint appears small because a large portion of the RAM it guzzles is held by the back end, hidden somewhere between the kernel and user space. Firefox and Opera, on the other hand, have to allocate all their memory in user space, which shows up in Task Manager.
-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/28/ie7_nukes_rival_search/
[q]Microsoft's Internet Explorer 7 went on a limited beta release today and contains a nasty surprise for some users.
Users with search toolbars from Yahoo! and Google have discovered that these vanish. Other third-party toolbars designed to block pop-ups or aid with form filling appear to be working normally, according to reports from Reg readers.
IE7 integrates search into the browser, but the only option is Microsoft's own MSN Search. There are sound compatibility reasons for Microsoft disabling third-party toolbars in an early cut of the software. The beta is only available to Vista beta testers, and is available either as part of Vista itself or as a download for Windows XP Service 2, and affects only a few thousand people.
But it does raise ominous echoes of Microsoft previous tactics of foreclosing competition by hiding the alternatives available to users. For anti-competive reasons Microsoft is unlikely to risk such a move in the finished product. We'll have to see.
Microsoft last updated its web browser in August 2001 - when cellphones still had monochrome screens and Ken Lay was in charge of the invicible Enron business empire.[/q]
-
It's DR-DOS all over again.
-
That's strange, aldo...according to this source (http://www.flexbeta.net/main/articles.php?action=show&id=102) that I saw posted elsewhere, the built-in search bar has several engines available, similar to Firefox's, and Google is the default choice. To anyone saying that this beta is faster than Firefox, this source also says that it was substantially slower at loading most pages. I will agree that Firefox is slightly pokey when you first install it (although it was still better than IE on the two machines I have it installed on), with a few simple tweaks, it leaves IE in the dust. Unless anyone can give me any reason to give up the amazing browser I'm using and go back to the browser that frustrated the hell out of me just about every time I tried to use it, I'm sticking with the fox. :)
-
I can verify that. You can select from Google, Ask Jeeves, MSN, and Yahoo in the search bar.
And it does have a sort of lag at startup like FF does...
-
Umm... The Google toolbar works fine with the version of the IE7 beta I have :nervous:
-
I dont use FF for the security or speed or anything, sure they're nice to have though, i use it for the browsing features, tabs and junk.
-
I'm most interested in the following:
[list=1]
- Does it properly prevent people from unknowingly installing spy/ad/malware? This question comes from a POV of the office computer guy... :doubt:
- I've heard the PNG support is perfected; that's great. What about CSS 1 - is it fully supported yet (http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/complexspiral/glassy.html)? If so, great - how about CSS2? If those are fully supported (and there's no reason in hell they should be able to get away with them NOT being supported, although if they aren't fully in the beta, that's understandable), then have they also done away with the CSS parsing bugs - the ones used to show/hide certain CSS hacks from IE, etc?
In short, does this browser support CSS1 + 2, and if so, does it comprehend all the code the same way Firefox does - not being affected by all the IE5.5/6 hacks us web developers have had to use?
- Does it's implementation of tabbed browsing SUCK as utterly as the MSN toolbar's implementation?
-
Sandwich: According to what I've read, only 2 of the CSS bugs in IE have been fixed. It's not much different from IE6 in CSS support. :blah:
Edit: Here's a review by Dave Shea: http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2005/07/28/ie7_css_upda/
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Sandwich: According to what I've read, only 2 of the CSS bugs in IE have been fixed. It's not much different from IE6 in CSS support. :blah:
Edit: Here's a review by Dave Shea: http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2005/07/28/ie7_css_upda/
For f*** sake, they're not endearing themselves to me here.
-
Good link. I've read the IE developer blog somewhat, so I know that they plan to implement most things like CSS 1/2 the way they should be done, so this early beta not supporting numerous things doesn't really surprise me. It would have been nice to have a bug-free beta, yeah, but then if that was the case, then why call it a beta?
I'll be patient for now. At least PNG support is done properly - that alone I believe is an issue that was restricting web designers a lot more than they suspected. It's just a shame that IE7 isn't planned on being released for Win2k; that basically makes any fixes and standards-support they get done in IE7 pointless, since half the corporate world is still running Win2k. Heck, so am I, at home. :blah:
EDIT: A C|Net look at IE7 Beta (http://reviews.cnet.com/Microsoft_Internet_Explorer_7_Beta/4505-3514_7-31454661-2.html?tag=top).
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
That's strange, aldo...according to this source (http://www.flexbeta.net/main/articles.php?action=show&id=102) that I saw posted elsewhere, the built-in search bar has several engines available, similar to Firefox's, and Google is the default choice. To anyone saying that this beta is faster than Firefox, this source also says that it was substantially slower at loading most pages. I will agree that Firefox is slightly pokey when you first install it (although it was still better than IE on the two machines I have it installed on), with a few simple tweaks, it leaves IE in the dust. Unless anyone can give me any reason to give up the amazing browser I'm using and go back to the browser that frustrated the hell out of me just about every time I tried to use it, I'm sticking with the fox. :)
Well....
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/29/scoble_email/
[q]How do you turn a bug in a limited-circulation beta used by just a few thousand people into a full-blown PR crisis that entertains millions?
Simple. You just hand a keyboard to Robert Scoble.
The news that some users noticed their Google and Yahoo! toolbars vanish in IE7 soon reached the "celebrity blogger" in Microsoft's marketing department yesterday - and he flew into action. He began to paint a picture that grew more confusing and contradictory as the day turned to night.
At first Scoble confirmed there were problems with "older versions of Yahoo". "Yahoo's version 5.6 had an issue but the current version (6.1.1) is working fine," he wrote on his weblog.
But he soon contradicted that in comments later in the evening.
"We have not seen any problems yet. But we're only a few testers working afterhours here," he wrote at 10:24PM yesterday in between repeated attacks on the integrity of the media.
He was on a roll.
This morning he was even more empathetic.
"We have not seen any issues with the latest Google or Yahoo toolbar on IE 7 beta 1. Can I say that clearly enough?" he wrote [7/29/05; 1:24:07 PM] in the comments section of his blog.
And on his weblog frontpage, Scoble wrote:
"I never saw the problem that Andrew said I had. I don't have any problems with either Yahoo or Google's toolbars on my machines. Your mileage may vary. I have no idea what Andrew's talking about."
Perhaps we can jog his memory.
A reader has stepped forward to volunteer this email. We've simply removed his name. It was sent yesterday evening Pacific Time, and this morning our source gave us permission to use it.
[q]
Subject: RE: IE7 nukes Google, Yahoo! search
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 17:31:42 -0700
From: "Robert Scoble"
To: [zapped]
Yup, trying to find out what's up on that one. It did it for me too. Wiped them out.
Robert[/q]
Oops.
Much has been made of blogger ethics, with conferences set up to discuss the legal implications of corporate blogging, charters and codes of conduct drawn up, and even honor tags suggested. But one ethic should hardly need to be spelled out.
You try and tell the truth.
Is this the end of the road for Scoble's Redmond adventure? Will professionals handle these situations from now on? The fellow seems to have no shortage of enemies on the campus, ranging from PR staff to technical liaisons, and this gives them plenty more ammunition. It's not the first time Scoble's indiscretions have got his colleagues into trouble. Or even the second. Bullying small web publications, while maintaining an elaborate fiction, is a new step for the blogger however, and in our experience Microsoft's PR professionals have never resorted to bullying.
Perhaps the humane solution to the gaffe-prone Scoble - one involving reels and reels of duct tape - will suffice. ®[/q]
-
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
:nervous:
-
I'm really dismayed at a lack of progress in supporting the standards. Not that its really surprising...but a flashy new interface is not going to make me switch back. An excellent browser experience with user customizability, useable features, and security are going to make me want to use the browser.
IE6 no longer has this...IE7 doesn't seem to have this. Why is it that a small group of guys working for the open source community "get it" while a bunch of highly payed "professionals" don't.
-
Something to do with it being a job as opposed to a hobby?
-
Good news for web designers:
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Good news for web designers:
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx
Progress! That is encouraging. I'd really love to see 100% compatibility and complete duplication between browsers when it comes to the basic HTML stuff. Even basic stuff with IE6 vs everything else (Netscape, Mozilla, Opera, and Safari) is sometimes quite a headache.
-
Interesting, but I still think there's a long way to go. As one of the comments points out, this won't fix problems for people using win98, etc, who won't have I.E7.
Sure, M$ have discontinued support for that OS but if they expect users to stay loyal to their software they'll have to implement some sort of legacy support for the software that relies on their unsupported OS.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Interesting, but I still think there's a long way to go. As one of the comments points out, this won't fix problems for people using win98, etc, who won't have I.E7.
Sure, M$ have discontinued support for that OS but if they expect users to stay loyal to their software they'll have to implement some sort of legacy support for the software that relies on their unsupported OS.
They won't...but their competitors will. Thats where the monopoly shows its weakness.
-
Good to hear that what they are doing, they're doing properly.
-
I'm wondering if I should turn the tables on MS; now they've finally decided to sort out their browser's CSS and HTML rendering, maybe I should make my web server ignore requests from IE simply because it's IE...
Similar to the way IE seems to have ignored web standards (such as those my website rigidly adheres to) up until now.
-
Still not standards compliant. In fact they're purposely not working on that since it would break a whole lot of sites including their own MSDN databases. Rather unfortunate.
At least the IE team was resurrected and we'll have a hope of a better IE. And the PNG bug is fixed.
Firefox is slow right now. It also has a severe memory. Granted it's fixed in Deer Park, but that isn't for general use yet. I still use FF over IE6 but I hope FF 1.5 gets realized sometime soon.
[edit] Okay, did the database break while I was gone? I don't remember having over a thousand posts.[/edit]
-
They add up quick. >.>
-
Originally posted by ChronoReverse
Still not standards compliant. In fact they're purposely not working on that since it would break a whole lot of sites including their own MSDN databases. Rather unfortunate.
At least the IE team was resurrected and we'll have a hope of a better IE. And the PNG bug is fixed.
Firefox is slow right now. It also has a severe memory. Granted it's fixed in Deer Park, but that isn't for general use yet. I still use FF over IE6 but I hope FF 1.5 gets realized sometime soon.
[edit] Okay, did the database break while I was gone? I don't remember having over a thousand posts.[/edit]
Severe memory what? Useage? Its pitiful compared to how much IE actually sucks up...you just don't know about it because its integrated so deeply into the core of the OS.
-
Firefox is slow and doesn't work with a few websites, but the reason it is far superior to IE is the adblock plugin available for it
Ive got Norton Internet Security, i only use IE6, and i never get a single popup. And if i do so happen to get one, SP2's pop-up blocker stops it. Norton is the best thing since sliced bread.. i swear by it.
-
Originally posted by IceFire
Severe memory what? Useage? Its pitiful compared to how much IE actually sucks up...you just don't know about it because its integrated so deeply into the core of the OS.
Eh.
Firefox has an acknowledged (and fixed in Deer Park) bug where memory isn't released. Every time you load an image, it gets cached and then doesn't ever get removed. This is with unmodified builds of Firefox 1.0.x.
It also has a smaller memory leak (which doesn't seem to occur all the time like all tough memory leaks) where if you leave the window open (and with tabs usually) it'll slowly accumulate more memory. To the degree of over 600MB after a couple of days.
As for IE, the only thing that matters is how much memory it uses over the system nominal. In that regard it's easy to tell how much it uses and Firefox with the memory bugs uses significantly more.