[Taristin]

Why do you need to sign up to download a browser?

[BlackDove]

So that they can manipulate you more easily.

[General Freak]

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? :/

[Kamikaze]

Well, until Microsoft releases IE7 for Linux, I'll be more excited about Firefox 1.1.

Particularly since Microsoft has no intention of fully supporting the CSS specifications for IE7.

[delta_7890]

<<;  Odd..I signed up, but..I can't download it?

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Zarax
I know you're a bunch of FireFox lovers, so you won't believe me...


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]

[Kamikaze]

From a Tom's Hardware article


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.

[Windrunner]

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

[aldo_14]

Code: [Select]


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();
}
}


[Descenterace]

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.

[aldo_14]

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]

[karajorma]

It's DR-DOS all over again.

[Mongoose]

That's strange, aldo...according to this source 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.

[Fenrir]

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...

[Admiral LSD]

Umm... The Google toolbar works fine with the version of the IE7 beta I have

[FireCrack]

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.

[Sandwich]

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...
• I've heard the PNG support is perfected; that's great. What about CSS 1 - is it fully supported yet? 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?

[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.

Edit: Here's a review by Dave Shea: http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2005/07/28/ie7_css_upda/

[vyper]

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.

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.

[Sandwich]

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.

EDIT: A C|Net look at IE7 Beta.