Has anybody tried Internet Explorer 7 yet?

[kurth]

Just wondering. The final version is out:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/downloads/default.mspx

So far, so good, except for the ClearType Tuner thingy messing with my LCD settings.

[FSogol]

1. Firefox is a better program, imho . n/t

[Cooley Hurd]

2. Yes, and from an interface standpoint, it's pretty good!

...the security standpoint has YET to be evaluated.;)

[Greyhound]

12. The security will continue to suck as M$ has fundamental, built in, flaws

that cannot be undone without changing how Winblows fundamentally works and un-integrating (de-integrating, disintegrating) the browser from it.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ananda]

4. No, I use Firefox and sometimes Safari.

nt

[stopbush]

37. MS doesn't even have a Mac version of IE anymore.

They stopped with vers 5 long ago, issued no further updates and no longer have a Mac version available for free download.

Life is good!

[grizmaster]

5. doing my update tonight

I'll report back tomorrow on whether anything blew up

[Democrat 4 Ever]

6. I did my update a couple of weeks ago, too. I really like it.

I thought it was just me thinking the colors looked brighter. And I like the layout, etc. Two thumbs up in my humble opinion.

[dkofos]

7. No And I most likely won't. (doesn't run in Linux)

Version 7 and they still don't have it right!!

[Dawgs]

11. Better than Firefox!!

Who said it isn't right?
How many versions have there been of Firefox?

What is the deal with you Microsoft haters? Is it jealousy?

[wakeme2008]

15. I run Firefox on Linux/Apple and Windows machines

I am easy....

[Union Thug]

33. On my G5, I run Safari. Firefox is not bad, some fonts

display poorly in some circumstances, so I always end up back in Safari.

[Greyhound]

16. Firefox is all the way up to ver. 1.5

Plus it adheres to the W3C standards and it isn't integrated into the OS.

We just know more about computers and how they can and should work than you do.

[Dawgs]

38. Okay,

"Plus it adheres to the W3C standards and it isn't integrated into the OS."

Explain why this makes Firefox so much better.

IE 7 adheres to the W3C standards and who cares if IE is integrated into the OS.

If you knew anything about computers you'd realize that you could do a lot more with IE (ActiveX, more plugins, and more compatibility with third-party programs).

Firefox is less vunerable because IE has been around for a much longer period of time.

I've written many Java applets that require a stable Internet browser, and I only have problems with Firefox. So, please quit telling me that you know more about computers. It only makes you look stupid.

[blogslut]

39. IE 7 adheres to the W3C standards?

That's new. They never did before.

[AngryAmish]

44. Also complies with TFL4000 accreditation.

[greyl]

45. I don't think so. It's better, but

The most critical point in Wilson's post, in my mind, is Microsoft's admission that it will fail the crucial Acid2 browser-compliance test , which the Web Standards Project (WaSP) designed to help browser vendors ensure that their products properly support Web standards. Microsoft apparently disagrees. "Acid2 ... is pointedly not a compliance check," Wilson noted, contradicting the description on the Acid2 Web site. "As a wish list, is really important and useful to my team, but it isn't even intended, in my understanding, as our priority list for IE 7.0." Meanwhile, other browser teams have made significant efforts to comply with Acid2.

Microsoft blames backward-compatibility problems for the stalemate over true Web standards compatibility. Put succinctly, the company has gone its own way for so long and now has to support so many developers who use nonstandard Web technologies that it will be impossible to make IE Web-standards-compliant without breaking half the commercial Web sites on the planet. Furthermore, by halting all IE development for several years before reconstituting the IE team to create IE 7.0, Microsoft has set back Web development by an immeasurable amount of time.

My advice is simple: Boycott IE. It's a cancer on the Web that must be stopped. IE isn't secure and isn't standards-compliant, which makes it unworkable both for end users and Web content creators. Because of their user bases, however, Web developers are hamstrung into developing for IE at the expense of established standards that work well in all other browsers. You can turn the tide by demanding more from Microsoft and by using a better alternative Web browser. I recommend and use Mozilla Firefox, but Apple Safari (Macintosh only) and Opera 8 are both worth considering as well.
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/47208/47208.html

http://www.site-reference.com/articles/Website-Development/Preparing-Your-Site-for-Internet-Explorer-7.html
http://cws.internet.com/article/2965-.htm
http://michaelmontgomery.net/article/internet-explorer-7
http://www.opednews.com/articles/life_a_james_op_061012_website_designers___.htm

[greyl]

64. No reply from Dawgs here? nt

[Greyhound]

46. LOL!

If you're qualified, my class rate is $400 - $1200 p/day depending on what class you want. I don't teach newbies unless they are personal friends in need.

The standards exist so that we don't end up with some fragmented mish-mash where you have to use a particular browser to see a particular website, of course that is exactly what M$ wants and is the reason they integrated the browser into the OS in the first place (and to steal netscape's market share). M$ does not conform to any standards with any of their software because they just can't compete on a head to head basis, their only option is to leverage their OS dominance to force users into buying their crappy, incredibly overpriced, software.

If you knew anything about computers you would never tout ActiveX, nor .NET, as anything other than a sure-fire way to make your system vulnerable to every script-kiddie on the net with a desire to do what you don't want them to. I especially love the way you follow up your implication of superior knowledge by mentioning third party compatibility! :rofl:

Firefox is less vulnerable for hundreds of reasons, none of them being longevity (BTW, M$ tried to use this canard to explain why Linux is so much more secure than windoze, didn't work then either), but the biggest one is that it is a stand-alone app that is not integrated into the OS, except as windoze requires it to use some IE functionality in order to run in windoze, vulnerability not present in non-windoze versions of Firefox. Any programmer, should understand the vulnerabilities inherent in granting root access to any application, let alone a web browser (an application that is of necessity open and unsecure), which leads me to believe you are not really a developer, but more likely a script-writer limited to what a particular IDE allows you to do.

But of course, you already know all this since you're a professional software developer, not some pathetic microserf pretending. :eyes:

[Dawgs]

54. Okay, then what are your qualifications?

Other than the fact you disagree with every other "expert". That, and your obvious bias against anything Microsoft shows your true knowledge of computers.

There is not one thing you said proves that you know anything about computers, other than the fact that you didn't mention anything I already know.

As far as ActiveX and third-party apps are concerned, you might want to try again. Workiing in the industrial application development industry I have no choice but to work with Microsoft products. Anyone that pretends that open source products are the only applications worth working with might want to try getting a job in the real world. Most companines and industries use Microsoft products.

The fact that you can't even spell IE and Microsoft shows your bias as well.

Now, where did I say I didn't realize the vulnerabilities of either app? Those are your words.

Again, just because you don't like Microsoft doesn't make you right.

I also found it interesting that you didn't answer my original question. Why am I not surprised.

[Greyhound]

66. You are confusing knowledge with bias. I'm opposed to theft, bribery,

intimidation, and lying as well, if I wasn't I suppose I'd like M$ too. The fact that people are willing to pay $1400 a day, and pick up the expenses, to have me teach them various packages, languages, and techniques should tell you something of my qualifications. There are others that command higher fees, but not many.

I don't really have much opportunity to deal with open-source, mostly it is proprietary languages and systems that take my time. I am all in favor of open-source and I think 20 years from now we'll look back on this era as a "WTF were they thinking" time. (this assumes that the world will continue to lurch along without some global collapse of the economy or environment)

Most companies and industries use M$ because they were forced into it, simply because of M$'s OS dominance, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming the whole way. A prime example is the legal profession, just ask a legal secretary whether s/he would prefer to use Word or WordPerfect.

You didn't say you that you didn't realize the vulnerabilities, but you tried to use them as examples of why internet exploder is "better".

Being right makes me right.

Your original question; "Who said it isn't right?
How many versions have there been of Firefox?
What is the deal with you Microsoft haters? Is it jealousy?"

All these were answered, so if there is a question I overlooked, maybe you should repeat it.

[Solon]

52. You view ActiveX as a good thing?

That alone disqualifies you from commenting on other people's technical knowledge, in fact, I don't think you should be allowed within 500 feet of an internet connected computer.

[Dawgs]

55. Where did I say that ActiveX was a good thing?

You do realize that you are in love with a piece of software just because you've been convinced that MS is bad and open source is good.

And you want me to stay away from an internet connected computer.

[Solon]

59. Here's a quote:

If you knew anything about computers you'd realize that you could do a lot more with IE (ActiveX, more plugins, and more compatibility with third-party programs).

Now, in this sentence, you praised IE, and in conjunction ActiveX as "doing more things" than I assume, Firefox, now, what these things are, I would think they involve things like trojans or something, cause I can't really think of anything that IE can do that Firefox also doesn't do, outside of ActiveX, which is basically just an unlocked backdoor into your computer.

Can you list what major plugins aren't supported, how about anything else that Firefox can't do, I mean, here I am, running Windows XP, on Firefox, I can go to Google Maps(Ajax), no problem, I can run the latest flash sites, animations, Java is fully supported, so is Javascript. Not to mention the extensions you can download for Firefox, that expand its capabilities, along with a built in RSS(Live Bookmark) reader, etc.

And this is all in Firefox 1.5.0.7.

Also, I'm not "in love" with a piece of software, I view it as a tool and I prefer tools that don't, all of the sudden, help others hijack my computer for their own, nefarious purposes, thank you very much.

[greyl]

62. Yup. nt

[LTR]

53. Actually...

Mozilla's roots reach back farther than IE. Mozilla was initially built on the original Netscape architecture. When Netscape was bought by AOL and virtually abandoned, the original Netscape browser was turned into the open-source Mozilla browser.

At least that's how I recall it happened.

As for myself, I use both Avant Browser (which is essentially based on IE's architecture, but with more secure features, pop-up and ad blocking, customizable skins and, of course, tabbed browsing) and Firefox. I rarely use IE. I like using both since some pages look better in IE, and I do some web design, so I like to see how everything looks in both types of browser.

[Dawgs]

56. You may be right, but I actually did a little research to make my...

points. Many articles written by "experts" (not MS employees) that made those comments, not me.

[greyl]

63. Not may be, is. nt

[Occulus]

71. 1.5.0.7, actually

And you're 100% correct in your assessment of the situation :thumbsup:

[dkofos]

22. Did I say Firefox No I said It won't run on Linux

But Firefox is ver. 1.5.05

[greyl]

40. 1.5.0.7 ;)

http://www.mozilla.com/firefox/releases/1.5.0.7.html

[dkofos]

42. I guess I will have to check my updates

[kiahzero]

43. IE is integrated into the OS. Therefore it sucks.

Integrating a web browser into the operating system is an idea that can be described in two words: fucking retarded.

[Greyhound]

65. That sums it up. They sacrificed security and the possibility of stability

in order to steal Netscape's market share. There is no other reason for this and it was a major contribution to the problems that windoze has suffered ever since. They ruined a leading technology company, sacrificed operability and their customers security in order to avoid paying what they owed. Almost everybody that has had their money, identity and other personal information stolen from their computers is M$ fault.

If it weren't for the idiots in this country (s)electing re:puke:s in 2000, M$ was well on it's way to a conviction and huge penalty for violating the anti-trust laws of this country. If there were any justice, instead of bribery, in this country, Gates, Balmer, and Allen would be behind bars. instead of St. Croix.

I think the real tragedy is how many revolutionary discoveries and software packages that have not been invented because our government favors corporate monopolies over competition.

[boolean]

68. Let me play devil's advocate

Whenever I install something in Linux, the files are put all over the goddamn place. I have to trust the guy who wrote the install and uninstall script.

Whenever I download something for linux, I have to compile it first. But then the compiler is out of date. So I have to download the latest version of GCC. Then I have to compile THAT. But wait! It doesn't compile because I need the latest version of the Kernel! So I download the latest kernel, and when I try to compile THAT, it turns out I need to have the Kernel headers. Why don't they include the headers with the Kernel, you might ask? Fuck if I know! So I get the fucking headers.

I compile the kernel. (Which takes a year just to configure, then another year just to compile)

I compile GCC.

I compile the software I downloaded in the first place.

And after all is said and done: It still doesn't work.

I go to linux forums and ask questions and get all sorts of answers. Turns out the solution is to edit some obscure file in etc/blahblahblah.conf and add the following line: blahblah = 0:x,4

Eureka! It works! And it only took me 3 weeks!

Not that I don't hate M$oft. But for Christ's sake.

[Occulus]

72. Allow me, as a linux user since Redhat 4, to address your concerns

"Whenever I install something in Linux, the files are put all over the goddamn place. I have to trust the guy who wrote the install and uninstall script."

Not exactly. You could edit the script yourself. You could also set your path differently. You could set up links to the directories in which Firefox stores your cache and bookmarks, and telling Firefox where to put its downloads is done identially in Windows and linux version.

"Whenever I download something for linux, I have to compile it first."

What distro are you using? Because when I yum install something, the dependencies are automatically resolved, and I usually don't have to compile anything unless it's not in one of my defined yum repositories. Even then, I can usually successfully compile everything I download. There's a reason the file is titled "README FIRST".

"But wait! It doesn't compile because I need the latest version of the Kernel!"

If you're not keeping your kernel updated, you're wrong.

"So I download the latest kernel, and when I try to compile THAT, it turns out I need to have the Kernel headers. Why don't they include the headers with the Kernel, you might ask? Fuck if I know! So I get the fucking headers."

Heh. The kernel for linux comes in two forms: source, and binary. You don't need the headers if you get the binary, but because of hardware disparities, you may need to compile the kernel yourself. That's what the headers are for. The kernel headers are also used for compiling other software, such as kernel modules; because of this, I tend to always get the headers when I get a new kernel.

The headers aren't always necessary, though, so they're not included. This is for file size reasons; linux is by design a system that can run on old, slow hardware with limited storage space. In all, it's a good thing.

"I compile the kernel. (Which takes a year just to configure, then another year just to compile)"

That's right. It does take time, because your computer has to translate human readable text into something it can understand. It also has to make sure everything is being done correctly. This takes time. Go make a sammich or something :D

"I compile the software I downloaded in the first place. And after all is said and done: It still doesn't work. I go to linux forums and ask questions and get all sorts of answers. Turns out the solution is to edit some obscure file in etc/blahblahblah.conf and add the following line: blahblah = 0:x,4"

It's easier to copy and paste your suspicious error message into Google and look for other people who have had the exact same issue. I can almost guarantee you that the error you're getting has appeared before. You just have to dig a bit; normally, I can find such solutions in about five or ten minutes. Sometimes, though...

"Eureka! It works! And it only took me 3 weeks!"

I've had that happen to me, and it's damn frustrating. I've learned the hard way to take notes. For example, to install the Nvidia GeForce drivers correctly for Fedora Core 5 from a clean, new install, I have to:

yum update (takes forever, because it updates every installed package, including the kernel, all at once)
cd /etc
mv -f yum.conf yum.conf.bak
wget http://www.fedorafaq.org/samples/yum.conf
rpm -Uvh http://www.fedorafaq.org/yum http://rpm.livna.org/livna-release-5.rpm
yum install kmod-nvidia
setsebool -P allow_execmod=1
nvidia-config-display enable
nvidia-xconfig

To use linux, one has to be willing to type things and read things, and many windows users have never dealt with their command line even once. That's what drives people away from linux: sometimes, it's work.

"But for Christ's sake."

I know. I know. Believe me, I know.

[Occulus]

70. Point releases are different from "versions".

Open source software OFTEN has point releases. If it didn't, I'd assume there was something wrong with the software and wouldn't use it.

The exact reverse is true for commercial software: if there are too many updates too quickly, there's something wrong with the software.

It's not jealousy. What informs us is fact.

[Subdivisions]

8. It's ok but it takes away IE 6's ability to play

embedded objects, like videos, without having to first click on the object. This can be a pain in the ass when you are waiting for a video to play while browsing and it occurs to you that you haven't heard it start yet and it's because you didn't click on the player.

This idiosycracy is a result of a lawsuit Microsoft lost to the company that wrote and designed the embedding code. Seems Microsoft used the code without permission.

[Greyhound]

19. What?!? M$ stealing someone else's work without permission or pay?

I'm shocked, utterly nonplussed, stupefied even... :sarcasm:

[Cooley Hurd]

26. It's a minor PIA...

...if it protects my CPU from crazy-ass, embedded worms, it's a minor inconvenience.:)

[Greyhound]

36. Don't worry, it won't stop them, just make it harder to find them. n/t

[madokie]

9. I have been using IE 7 rc1 since it came out a couple months ago

I'm downloading the real deal as I type. I like Ie7 rc1 and I'm looking forward to this, Thanks for the link.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

10. Been doing so for about an hour now. Seems okay.

[MrModerate]

13. Just a few minutes ago . . .

Seems pretty good so far. I never used Firefox or Opera, etc., so I can't compare it, but I do like the multitabbed features, persistent search bar, and print resizing.

Only problem so far is that the Adobe add-in that converts a page to a PDF disappears when I change from the first tabbed window to any subsequent windows. That's pretty serious to me, since I do a lot of 'net research and save the results to PDF, so I'm hoping it's a configuration thing rather than a bug.

[kurth]

25. No pdf conversion for me either

The F11 shortcut trick is neat, but a lot of people use the Adobe add-in.

[MrModerate]

31. F11 shortcut?

I just tried it and the window frame went away, but it doesn't seem to do anything actually useful.

[dkofos]

27. Wow Sounds like msoft is still behind the 8-ball

Still not bug free huh

[wakeme2008]

14. Last I heard they were reformating their hard drives

:rofl:

[Gman]

17. Tried RC2 and

it screwed up some things in QuickBooks. The general feeling I get is that they're trying too hard to be better than Firefox. It's a pain in the ass as a result. The interface and all the seeemingly useless gadgets are overwhelming. Why the hell would I want a browser that warns me about phishing? I take care of that at the email client side. But that's supposed to be a big thing. It also feels like its heavy on memory overhead. COmpared to Firefox, its very clunky and in general a POS.

I intend to block it from update as long as I can.

[kurth]

23. I agree the phishing feature is PR garbage

Besides, who wants to send their URLs to Microsoft for checking? Kinda like sending them to Homeland Security...

[Human Torch]

28. Two good, free anti-phishing extensions for Firefox:

1). McAfee Site Advisor (which also shows the safety of your Google search results before you click on them):

http://www.download.com/McAfee-SiteAdvisor-for-Firefox/3000-11745_4-10493671.html

2). Netcraft Toolbar (gives the hosting location and Risk Rating of every site you visit):

http://toolbar.netcraft.com/

:toast:

[Gman]

41. This is not something MS spends recurring expenses on just to

support this feature. It's probably ultimately intended to track where you go and ultimately, somehow in the business plan, generate revenue. Somehow, somewhere it ties into the business plan to compete and/or beat Google. Something like this is not just because it's a good feature. IT's really pretty useless, as is the rest of IE 7.

[patricia92243]

18. I did. I disliked it so much that I removed it and re-installed my old ver

version (not sure which number.) But I'm technically challenged, and anything new throws me into a tizzy. :(

[lpbk2713]

20. I only use MSIE when I have no other choice.

Have been using using Mozilla for some time now. Used Netscape for years before that.

[formercia]

21. I installed it for a friend that insists on using IE

it didn't crash the couple of times that I tried it but I prefer Firefox.

[originalpckelly]

24. I know real people worked on it, but that thing is pure crap...

I know because I thought I would try it to see if they had really improved it much. It is so FUCKING ANNOYING! You have to do so much fiddling with it, that you might be confused with Mark Foley! After trying it for a week, I went back to good old Firefox. I encourage you to use the same, my mother who is not computer savvy uses Firefox and she never has problems figuring something out. It is well designed software and is updated more frequently.

[Union Thug]

29. I've been running various builds on my laptop for some time.

I think it's a big improvement over earlier incarnations! Some of the security functions are really annoying. Other than that, it works.

[zreosumgame]

30. Good Lord NO!

I LIKE my PC so I use FireFox

[MazeRat7]

32. Why ? I haven't tried poking a stick in my eye either (n/t)

[Greyhound]

47. LOL!

and if you did, you would find it yields the same results, a great deal of unnecessary pain and blindness. :rofl:

[madokie]

34. All right I downloaded and updated and it looks the same to me

I have been using ie7rc1 and so far I don't see any changes. I have tried firefox, opera and netscape and for some reason or another I didn't like any of them once I got past the new thingy. So far so good on ie7

[bpeale]

35. Opera 9.1

I use Opera 9.1 because its not top heavy like internet explorer and netscape. I still have them on my machine at work because some programs I use will only connect with Internet Explorer or Netscape. My personal favorite is Opera though.

[Beelzebud]

48. It's better than IE6, which isn't saying much. Firefox for me.

[MazeRat7]

49. Ha...less than 24 hrs after the release and there is the first exploit...

http://secunia.com/Internet_Explorer_Arbitrary_Content_Disclosure_Vulnerability_Test/

The definition of insanity: Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.


MZr7

[IDemo]

50. Running Firefox 2.0 - RC3

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/2.0/releasenotes/

[Maestro]

67. Thanks for the linkage.

:hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

51. It's Perfectly Fine. You'll Enjoy It.

But if you already use firefox or opera, there might be little motivation for you to switch. But to those that use ie6 and want to upgrade, go for it! You'll enjoy it.

[high density]

57. I tried it at work to make sure our website works ok in it

(The website passes W3C XHTML 1.0 Transitional validation, but you never know...)

Other than that I wouldn't use it. I prefer SeaMonkey or Firefox.

[berni_mccoy]

58. Does it run on Mac OS X?

[Imagevision]

60. it's cute, it doesn't compare to Firefox at all

[alcibiades_mystery]

61. I ran it...and now that I've tested, I won't touch that monoculture crap

if they paid me.

[stepnw1f]

69. Wow... that bad?

I'm happy with Safari, but still curious to see how EI runs, since I use a PC at work.