Skip to main content

Notice

If you are using a Hotmail or Outlook email address, please change it now, as Microsoft is rejecting all email from our service outright.
Topic: Internet Explorer 7 (Read 24019 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Internet Explorer 7

IE 7 download link

WOW, after looking at the screenshots, it is really not IE5 or 6 anymore, finally M$ surrendered to "TAB" and have made a revolution to IE7, that is tab browsing!

also supports RSS

Personally, I haven't downloaded it yet, I'm still waiting for Firefox 1.5 and final IE7.
I'm curious about how the new IE does when compared with Firefox..

Internet Explorer 7

Reply #1
i have. it really provides nothing new.

Internet Explorer 7

Reply #2
Quote
I'm curious about how the new IE does when compared with Firefox..
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=317374"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Security-wise IE is still going to be shitty!

Internet Explorer 7

Reply #3
Quote
finally M$ surrendered to "TAB" and have made a revolution to IE7, that is tab browsing!
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=317374"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

have you ever used Microsoft Office Excel? It has been using tabs for ages...so tabs are not a new idea, just a new trend to use them everywhere, which I find useful btw.
And besides that, the company that makes IE is named Microsoft (MS)
--alt-presets are there for a reason! These other switches DO NOT work better than it, trust me on this.
LAME + Joint Stereo doesn't destroy 'Stereo'

Internet Explorer 7

Reply #4
Quote
Security-wise IE is still going to be shitty![a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=317418"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Care to prove it? Or are you just speculating wildly?

Quote
And besides that, the company that makes IE is named Microsoft (MS) [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=317420"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Amen brother!

Internet Explorer 7

Reply #5
It still is not even close to standards compliant.  I don't think the rendering engine has actually changed between 6 and 7 Beta 1.  Hopefully by Beta 2 they'll be a few improvements.

I really want IE7 to be a good product, because as we all know, competition drives innovation.




Internet Explorer 7

Reply #9
Quote
Quote
Security-wise IE is still going to be shitty![{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Care to prove it? Or are you just speculating wildly?

Well, stuff like [a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/28/cert_ditch_explorer/]this[/url] doesn't exactly give me a lot of confidence.
Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.


Internet Explorer 7

Reply #11
Paul Thurrott, a journalist that usually writes about all things windows related, made a call in a recent article to boycott Internet Explorer, due to Microsoft's approach (continued in IE7) of not supporting web standards: 'My advice here is simple: Boycott Internet Explorer. It is a cancer on the Web, and must be stopped. IE is insecure and is not standards-compliant, which makes it unworkable for both end users and Web content creators... You can turn the tide by demanding better from Microsoft and using a better alternative Web browser. I recommend and use Mozilla Firefox, but Apple Safari (Mac only) and Opera 8 are both worth considering as well.'"

LINK

Internet Explorer 7

Reply #12
Quote
Well, stuff like this doesn't exactly give me a lot of confidence.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=317550"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Maybe they learned their lesson, eh?

Internet Explorer 7

Reply #13
Quote
Quote
Security-wise IE is still going to be shitty![a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=317418"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Care to prove it? Or are you just speculating wildly?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=317499"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It a speculation however it's more like a premonition, and as history would suggest it'll become reality in short time.

Here's the problem I foresee:
MS releases the beta before it ever becomes final to "testers." This also allows it to be leaked to unauthorized non-testers, which has already happened. Some of the non-testers are going to be malware writters who can effectively infect a system via IE7 on the day of it's public release with no problems whatsoever.

Internet Explorer 7

Reply #14
Quote
Quote
Well, stuff like this doesn't exactly give me a lot of confidence.[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Maybe they learned their lesson, eh?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=317602"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

We shall see, don't forget MS uses bits and pieces from previous OS's to make a new one and I doubt that IE is a 100% complete rewrite from the ground up.

Once it's finalized for public release I'll see if [a href="http://www.nsclean.com/dsostop.html]DSOstop[/url] states it still has the DSO Exploit, since every previous version has from Win98 to WinXP SP2.

Internet Explorer 7

Reply #15
IMO the problem of IE security is not in its holes, but in the fact that it's most popular. I suspect that other browsers have comparable number of holes, they're just not known/exploited. When someone wants to exploit something, he/she won't target the browser which is used by 1% of people, but the one which is used by 99%. That's why you hear about IE being more unsecure.
As for standards, what's a standard? If 99% of people say "wanna", and linguists say it should be "want to", then who represents the standard?

Internet Explorer 7

Reply #16
Quote
We shall see, don't forget MS uses bits and pieces from previous OS's to make a new one and I doubt that IE is a 100% complete rewrite from the ground up.


FireFox isn't a 100% rewrite either. It includes lots of junk from Mozilla and Netscape.

Internet Explorer 7

Reply #17
Quote
As for standards, what's a standard? If 99% of people say "wanna", and linguists say it should be "want to", then who represents the standard?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=317708"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That is actually an interesting analogy. The guys at W3C could be considered the purists that insist on utter adherence to the standards they set forth, like the Académie Française (is there a similar body for the English language?). And IE is the common guy that doesn't botter following all rules to the letter, being happy enough if he can get the message across.

Cool 

Internet Explorer 7

Reply #18
Quote
FireFox isn't a 100% rewrite either. It includes lots of junk from Mozilla and Netscape.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=317714"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Mozilla/Gecko was a complete rewrite from Netscape 4.x. Firefox is based upon Gecko. Firefox contains no significant (and probably very little insignificant) legacy code from Netscape 4.x, as far as I am aware. Gecko has always been a seperate component from both Seamonkey and Firefox; the latter depend on the former.

Internet Explorer 7

Reply #19
Quote
Firefox contains no significant (and probably very little insignificant) legacy code from Netscape 4.x, as far as I am aware.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=317751"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Just look at the SSL routine.

Internet Explorer 7

Reply #20
Quote
It still is not even close to standards compliant.  I don't think the rendering engine has actually changed between 6 and 7 Beta 1.  Hopefully by Beta 2 they'll be a few improvements.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Wrong. [a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx]http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx[/url]

 

Internet Explorer 7

Reply #21
Quote
IMO the problem of IE security is not in its holes, but in the fact that it's most popular. I suspect that other browsers have comparable number of holes, they're just not known/exploited. When someone wants to exploit something, he/she won't target the browser which is used by 1% of people, but the one which is used by 99%. That's why you hear about IE being more unsecure.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=317708"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


While it's certainly true that other browsers have security issues caused by bugs -- and from time to time they are exposed -- the difference with IE is that it's biggest problems with security come from it's design, not from individual bugs or holes.  The whole mess with ActiveX, tight OS integration, and stuff like that is the reason you see the level of problems that you do.

On the other hand, at least some other browsers attempt to be secure by design and try to move quickly to correct exposed design flaws.  I can't speak much for Opera, but at least Firefox has managed to stay on top of things relatively well compared to IE.

And for what it's worth, it should be pointed out that MS has a hell of a lot more resources to throw at fixing bugs and they have a lot more theoretical brainpower to prevent design level stupidity.  But they still manage to have problems on both counts.  Worst of all is that they don't even bother to fix half the problems they know about.  Kind of baffling really.

Internet Explorer 7

Reply #22
Quote
Quote
As for standards, what's a standard? If 99% of people say "wanna", and linguists say it should be "want to", then who represents the standard?[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=317708"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


That is actually an interesting analogy. The guys at W3C could be considered the purists that insist on utter adherence to the standards they set forth, like the Académie Française (is there a similar body for the English language?). And IE is the common guy that doesn't botter following all rules to the letter, being happy enough if he can get the message across.

Cool 
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=317715"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Cool? 

There's a huge difference between a formal standard and an informal standard.

Natural language is not formally specified.  There is no exact formal semantic for the English language.  But then again, it was never designed with that degree of formality in mind -- originally there was no need for it to have such a feature.

But that doesn't mean that there is never a need for such a feature.  Some things should be formally specified.  Mathematics and logic are good examples.  Can you imagine if people just went around using notation that they could be "happy enough if they could get the message across" with?  Imagine the impact that would have on science.  In fact we wouldn't have science probably.  And without that, we wouldn't have all this technology at our fingertips.  But I digress...

In communications, especially of the automated, computational sort, it is important for a standard or specification to be non-ambiguous.  Computers aren't good at dealing with ambiguity.  We don't want to have to have the web browser attempt to "guess" what the page is supposed to look like because someone was too lazy to do things in a strict and predictable fashion (thanks MS!).  The programmer doesn't want to have to implement an AI in the rendering engine just to get decent output.  And the end user doesn't want to have to deal with buggy display.  Of course, things aren't that bad right now, but I'd venture to guess that in most of the popular rendering engines out there, there's a huge amount of code dealing with making buggy, incorrect, and ambiguous code look like something someone might expect from average joe's webpage that he made with an old clunky version of frontpage or something similar.

And guess what?  If IE is a "standard," you can surely bet that it's not a "standard" that's defined anywhere.  You can't simply look up the IE "standard" and make your rendering engine compliant.  This sort of "standard" is not only totally informal, but nobody but Microsoft even knows exactly what it is (and maybe not even many of the people there know the whole of it!).

The web standards for a given protocol presented by the W3C are what the W3C say they according to the specification documentation, references, drafts, etc.  Does this mean that people have to listen to everything they say there? Surely not.  But it doesn't mean that someone else providing a buggy and incomplete version of one of their specifications is providing the actual standard in it's stead.  Such a version might become the "de facto" standard (as IE has for people too lazy to learn the real thing), but even that's still not the same.

Beyond that, I think just about anyone who has done any web development or web based programming (and no, dreamweaver doesn't count) and has used anything other than MS stuff at least at some point along the way, should see quite readily why formally specified, non-ambiguous web standards are a good thing, and why a so-called "IE standard" is a very bad thing.

Internet Explorer 7

Reply #23
Quote
Paul Thurrott, a journalist that usually writes about all things windows related, made a call in a recent article to boycott Internet Explorer, due to Microsoft's approach (continued in IE7) of not supporting web standards: 'My advice here is simple: Boycott Internet Explorer. It is a cancer on the Web, and must be stopped. IE is insecure and is not standards-compliant, which makes it unworkable for both end users and Web content creators... You can turn the tide by demanding better from Microsoft and using a better alternative Web browser. I recommend and use Mozilla Firefox, but Apple Safari (Mac only) and Opera 8 are both worth considering as well.'"

LINK
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=317599"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I especially liked this part:

Quote
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.




Yet another reason why tight standards are a good thing.  If things had been implemented properly from the get go, or at least as early as possible, it would have made the transition path so much clearer.  It's a hell of a lot easier to upgrade a system while simultaneously providing backward compatibility when the previous system is well defined and self contained.

This continuing mess with backwards compatibility on wintel PC's is really kind of shame, from the win32 core and apis, to the x86 ISA, to IE and web standards, etc.  It all just keeps getting crustier and crustier...

Internet Explorer 7

Reply #24
Quote
Just look at the SSL routine.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=317753"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Is this the only instance? I'd hardly consider borrowing SSL code to be very significant.

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2020