ie7 public beta out! (awaiting dl link)

[drhowarddrfine]

You're being argumentative when you admittedly don't know what you're talking about.

I don't remember because I don't follow this as closely as I used to. At least I'm not wrong. All of those "platforms" you speak of are hardware designed around ONE WinCE, not hundreds of versions of WinCE. MS designs to that ONE system, not to the hardware it runs on.

You said they always fix vulnerabilities and bugs faster.

Just because a bug is not fixed right away does not mean they don't fix important bugs faster. IE has bugs and security holes that haven't been fixed for years. I pointed out to you that the last bug that was, at first, thought to be important was patched in eight HOURS.

I merely said I'd seen issues fixed faster on IE than FF

No, you said a fix on IE would require at least 12 days.

that a vulnerability in IE meant a vulnerability in the OS. Which is simply no longer the case.

And as Chris Wilson of IE states on the IEBlog, IE7 runs with system components and I will do more search on this.

[drhowarddrfine]

From Techblog and also reported at Microsoft Watch: "Another difference between the standalone IE 7.0 and the version of the browser that will be embedded in Vista is permanent."

These same articles say there will be a standalone version for older versions of Windows only but will not contain the anti-phishing software and other 'bits' that will be in Vista only.

[drhowarddrfine]

EWeek reports "Microsoft wasn't going to release a new IE browser, apart from the embedded version in Windows Vista , but then increased security worries..."

Interesting that MS was concerned about security worries by embedding IE7 into Vista.

[dc dalton]

Well, due to the fact that MS also stopped the Support of win2k (patches etc.) it's just logical that they won't offer new Software on that plattforms either - in this case IE7. A company should update its Systems after 5 years anyway, but that's another discussion

So businesses who have stable systems and dont WANT to upgrade to XP (am major piece of crap IMO) get screwed? Yeah that's great customer relations! But then it's oh so typical.

[Carl]

I don't really care about IE7 because by the time it gets out in full release Firefox will have gained 450 million users which is enough to hold a healthy buffer against an IE browser. The reason that this will be enough is that IE7 for XP and above is just stupid. It is not going to entice people to upgrade to XP. Those that upgrade to XP will do for different reasons. IE7 is not going to be any goodwill advertisement Microsoft either because of the XP limitation.

I think that Microsoft is underestimating the power of designers and developers in pushing their browser of choice and holding ground. They are depending too much on large distribution campaigns to convince people to go with their software. This time around they will find that if they get 500 million instances of Windows Vista out and hold on to 600 million XP users that those users will be downloading and installing something other than IE. This is going to make it difficult for Microsoft to push other software that may be IE dependant like Office Web Ware. People will just say "Sorry, I choose to go with Star Office and Opera." or " Firefox and Open Office work fine at our company" for both our Vista/XP machines and Linux desktops.

[vgarcia]

So businesses who have stable systems and dont WANT to upgrade to XP (am major piece of crap IMO) get screwed? Yeah that's great customer relations! But then it's oh so typical.

1. I would guess that the number of businesses you're speaking of is relatively small. Customers like support and most of them will upgrade just because of that, and those who don't upgrade will find support elsewhere.
2. This might be a good time to let Windows 2000 users know about Firefox and Opera.

[Keriam]

So businesses who have stable systems and dont WANT to upgrade to XP (am major piece of crap IMO) get screwed? Yeah that's great customer relations! But then it's oh so typical.

It's called "forced obsolescence". Microsoft is not the only software company to do it, and for that matter not the only type of company to do it. Would you expect Ford or GM to support antique cars? In the software world, Win2K is becoming "antique". And... Microsoft will continue Security patching for Win2K until 2010. SP4 was just the last service pack that will be released for it.

[drhowarddrfine]

I'm not disagreeing with you but something to think about.

Would you expect Ford or GM to support antique cars?

You can buy parts and manuals for a long time, maybe 20 years? In any case, 3rd parties can give support, repairs and parts.

[wwb_99]

1. I would guess that the number of businesses you're speaking of is relatively small. Customers like support and most of them will upgrade just because of that, and those who don't upgrade will find support elsewhere.
2. This might be a good time to let Windows 2000 users know about Firefox and Opera.

Actually, on corporate desktops, there are still people converting from 98 to 2000. Aside from some IE niceties, 2000 supports all the neat group policy type stuff that XP does and works on cheaper hardware. And it is a bit more battle tested and does not have alot of stupid bells and whistles that have no place in a corporate environment. There are very few compelling reasons to upgrade to XP at this time.

On the server side things get even more interesting. We still have one NT 4 server in production (Exchange 5.5). Is it old? Yes. But the thing has been rock solid for 8 years. And upgrading major systems, like your email/PIM system is such a nightmare that one needs very compelling reasons to undergo that sort of pain. There are alot of other IT shops that have similiar situations. If it carries on anything like NT 4, Windows 2000 server will be widely deployed until 2015 or so. Sql 2000 will probably have a far longer life as people do not mess with production databases.

[Keriam]

You can buy parts and manuals for a long time, maybe 20 years? In any case, 3rd parties can give support, repairs and parts.

That was just a quick example that came to mind. But here's the thing, why do you buy something new? Generally, it is because the old item is broken and it will cost more to repair than to replace it. Or, the newer things have more features and you want it because of that. Why do you upgrade a computer? New features... goes faster.... more memory....

Technology does not sit still. As it advances, you need to advance to keep pace with it. Whether it is cars, computers, or software. Everything has a life expectancy or lifecycle. The timeframe of that varies depending on the item. How many iterations of Photoshop has there been? Does Adobe still support the first one? A software company can not sit still expecting people to keep buying the same old thing, no matter how good it is. They have to keep adding features in order to grow and advance. I still see Model T's on the road, but would we want to all still have them and nothing else?

[earther]

Technology does not sit still. As it advances, you need to advance to keep pace with it. Whether it is cars, computers, or software. Everything has a life expectancy or lifecycle. The timeframe of that varies depending on the item. How many iterations of Photoshop has there been? Does Adobe still support the first one? A software company can not sit still expecting people to keep buying the same old thing, no matter how good it is. They have to keep adding features in order to grow and advance. I still see Model T's on the road, but would we want to all still have them and nothing else?

[philosophy]The never-ending thirst for new and better things is really a curse that that can never be quelled. Current economic structure depends on it and planned obsolence becomes the way of life in a 'disposable' society.

Unfortunately, this attitude spills over into our relationships with each other and our environment - use it up and throw away. Disposable people, disposable cars, disposable toys, disposable planet. What ever happened to 'if it works don't fix it'??

In the end I suspect that we will find we are a disposable species (and the earth will be better off for it).[/philosophy]

[drhowarddrfine]

Technology does not sit still. As it advances, you need to advance to keep pace with it.

You bring up one of the huge advantages of open source. It is constantly being upgraded and tweaked with new features added as new methods/technology comes out. I use FreeBSD and can check for upgrades to my installed programs, as well as fbsd itself, every day and can upgrade to every little minor upgrade if I wish. I assume Linux has something similar and Firefox frequently upgrades such as the recent 1.5.01.

[wwb_99]

You bring up one of the huge advantages of open source. It is constantly being upgraded and tweaked with new features added as new methods/technology comes out. I use FreeBSD and can check for upgrades to my installed programs, as well as fbsd itself, every day and can upgrade to every little minor upgrade if I wish. I assume Linux is the same way as if Firefox.

Now ask yourself this--do you want the platform on which your mission-critical data crunching application constantly being tweaked and upgraded?

[Beansprout]

Now ask yourself this--do you want the platform on which your mission-critical data crunching application constantly being tweaked and upgraded?

Um, there's not really any reason to install any hacks unless they're security patches...so that point is invalid.

[drhowarddrfine]

Now ask yourself this--do you want the platform on which your mission-critical data crunching application constantly being tweaked and upgraded?

Absolutely! It means the app is being improved. Who wouldn't want that? But beansprout has it right. But I'm not talking hacks. I'm talking improvements/upgrades.

[Jack Matier]

Jeremy W.

About the "Secunia Report", when I took a look this is what I found:
Opera: http://secunia.com/product/4932/
Firefox: http://secunia.com/product/4227/
IE5.01: http://secunia.com/product/9/
IE5.5: http://secunia.com/product/10/
IE6.0: http://secunia.com/product/11/

Am I missing something? It looks like firefox is safer by what it says here..

And firefox runs on the how many different linux operating sytems, and windows operating systems, and OSX operating systems? This is much more hardware to work with by far as well. Even though it's without the palm/cellphone market.

[Viflux]

Jeremy W.

About the "Secunia Report", when I took a look this is what I found:
Opera: http://secunia.com/product/4932/
Firefox: http://secunia.com/product/4227/
IE5.01: http://secunia.com/product/9/
IE5.5: http://secunia.com/product/10/
IE6.0: http://secunia.com/product/11/

Am I missing something? It looks like firefox is safer by what it says here..

And firefox runs on the how many different linux operating sytems, and windows operating systems, and OSX operating systems? This is much more hardware to work with by far as well. Even though it's without the palm/cellphone market.

The point isn't that Firefox doesn't run on as many systems.

The point is that with Firefox being a free, open-source alternative, there is no accountability. If it doesn't work on a given platform, and none of the developers care to make it work on that platform, and you don't have the ability to do so yourself, you're SOL.

[LinhGB]

Good luck trying to get Microsoft to release IE, Windows Media Player and Office for Linux, mate (not that the Linux crowd want those ), and since when has closed source meant the same thing as accountability? Ask any IT support person if MS is accountable to the huge amount of their own software f'ups that these support folks have to deal with daily.

If an open source software doesn't work on a given platform, and you can't do it yourself, there will be some other people who will get it done, as it has been demonstrated so many times. At the very least, it is always possible. Not the same with closed source/proprietary. Even if it's technically feasible, but the men in suits don't like it, it won't be done.

[drhowarddrfine]

The point isn't that Firefox doesn't run on as many systems.

Wrong. FF runs on virtually all systems.

there is no accountability.

Tell that to the Google, IBM and other contributors to the Firefox project.

[Jeremy W.]

Wrong. FF runs on virtually all systems.

Tell that to the Google, IBM and other contributors to the Firefox project.

1. FireFox runs on all PC platforms. That's not the same as all systems.

2. Large companies using / contributing to a product don't equal accountability. Do you really think either one would step in if there were a lawsuit (and, if they did, would it be for any reason other than PR?).

I mean, Google's overall contributions to open source are fairly small compared to what it's taking from it. IBM's is much more balanced, but there still isn't accountability.

[Jeremy W.]

If an open source software doesn't work on a given platform, and you can't do it yourself, there will be some other people who will get it done, as it has been demonstrated so many times. At the very least, it is always possible. Not the same with closed source/proprietary. Even if it's technically feasible, but the men in suits don't like it, it won't be done.

Will get it done? Naw. Maybe. If you're lucky. And ask nicely. On the right forum. At the right time of day. With a question that can't ellicit a "RTFM" response.

In 10 years with both, I've found that overall people are willing to help in both groups. To about the same extent. And, realistically, the number of people who will pop in and reprogram your FireFox binary for you are pretty damned small. Which is why FireFox still doesn't pass the Acid2 test, still has several vulnerabilities, and still has dozens of bugs that are more than a year old.

It's called prioritization. And it happens whether you're a large, closed source, application or a small, open source, one. Teams ultimately need to prioritize where they focus their resources, and dozens of studies have shown that closed source and open source teams typically make exactly the same decisions. Because generally they are both run by very smart people (at the level we're talking about anyways).

[drhowarddrfine]

FireFox runs on all PC platforms. That's not the same as all systems.

By PC, I guess you mean Intel. Still, a magnitude more than what IE runs on.

As far as accountability, a very good point was made earlier in the MS is not accountable for its goofs now while open source runs to fix their problems.

Will get it done? Naw. Maybe. If you're lucky. And ask nicely. On the right forum. At the right time of day.

So let's see you get on any MS forum and tell them to fix CSS on IE7 at any time of day and see how quick it gets done and if you get ANY response, ever!

Which is why FireFox still doesn't pass the Acid2 test, still has several vulnerabilities, and still has dozens of bugs that are more than a year old.

At least it's closer than IE which can barely supply a recognizeable image. But let's get real with something we use. How about the DOM. Can't pass anything since 1998. How about Css2.1 while other browsers are working on CSS3. How about the DoS virus already out on IE7? How long will that take to fix? How about XHTML. Doesn't work in IE7 at all and no one knows when! Talk about bugs that are more than ONE year old. Let's start with the last century with IE!

dozens of studies have shown that closed source and open source teams typically make exactly the same decisions. Because generally they are both run by very smart people (at the level we're talking about anyways).

If they make the same decisions and they are both smart people, what is the MS problem with IE? Why can't they make it work? Why has it had NO updates to CSS/HTML/DOM/anything but security holes since 2001 in IE6 and 1998 for all IE? Why is Firefox, just barely over a year old, light years ahead when it was designed by some college student in his spare time? Did this kid outrun all of the smart MS people on their own? How did this happen? I guess this kid just wasn't accountable.

[Dzi]

One simple test of browser stability:

visit: http://www.picigin.net/logcells/
with IE7b2 and Firefox 1.5.0.1

What happend?

[Jeremy W.]

You have no desires for answers. If you did, you wouldn't talk about centuries. This thread is about IE7. It's not even about the beta. It's about the beta PREVIEW. Bugs should be reported to the IE team. I've personally reported half a dozen, and had a response on ALL of them (a personal response, not an auto responder). And, they even gave me a temporary fix on 2 of them, promising it'll be fixed in the final version.

As far as accountability, of course MS is accountable. The vast majority of support issues people run into with IE are due to poor administration more than anything. Giving users full local admin privileges? Running IE as an out-of-the-box install instead of from IE enterprise toolkit? Not running group privileges on any users? Not testing for a standard level of compliance? Not doing any patch management?

None of those have anything to do with IE. IT is still in a 1980s mentality, that there are no viruses and no issues anywhere. That has to change first and foremost. That is the cause of 98% of all IT issues.

As far as "some college kid" designing all of FireFox, give me a greak. Blake is an incredibly smart guy. I've met him. But he would never say he designed FireFox, neither would anyone working with him. His team is smart, which is why they prioritize. The IE team is also smart, which is why they prioritize.

If you want to know why specific decisions were prioritized differently than you, without any of the internal knowledge that they have, would have done, then make a specific case.

For example, you might ask Why ClearType is turned on by default, and why it doesn't use the system wide settings in IE7 (since this is what the thread is about). Or you might ask why the IE team addressed the box model (with one known bug), but didn't institute min/max width/height (which makes the box model fix useless.

Those would be valid questions. Saying "why hasn't IE been updated in a century" isn't a valid question, since it HAS been updated (with 3 major versions in the last 5 years). And, it never was a century.

[LinhGB]

Will get it done? Naw. Maybe. If you're lucky. And ask nicely. On the right forum. At the right time of day. With a question that can't ellicit a "RTFM" response.

In 10 years with both, I've found that overall people are willing to help in both groups. To about the same extent. And, realistically, the number of people who will pop in and reprogram your FireFox binary for you are pretty damned small. Which is why FireFox still doesn't pass the Acid2 test, still has several vulnerabilities, and still has dozens of bugs that are more than a year old.

It's called prioritization. And it happens whether you're a large, closed source, application or a small, open source, one. Teams ultimately need to prioritize where they focus their resources, and dozens of studies have shown that closed source and open source teams typically make exactly the same decisions. Because generally they are both run by very smart people (at the level we're talking about anyways).

I don't disagree with the points you're making, but what I'm disagreeing with is your putting down open source and Firefox in particular, and giving the thumbs up to Microsoft and Internet Explorer, when the latter is much much worse than what you criticise Firefox for. Don't get me started on Microsoft and accountability... If it were another company then you would have a point.