IE7 Platforms and Outlook Express


We’ve seen lots of questions about the IE7 announcement. Many of these we are not ready to answer and discuss at this time but there are two things that I can offer clarification on.

  • Platforms. We currently plan to make IE7 available for Windows XP SP2 and later. This will therefore include availability not only for the 32bit version of Windows XP SP2 but also for Windows XP Professional x64 Edition and Windows Server 2003 SP1 both of which are due to be released soon. As Dean commented in his original IE7 post on this blog we have heard the requests for support of Windows 2000 but have nothing to announce at this time.
  • Outlook Express. It’s great to see the questions on Outlook Express which is a separate product team to Internet Explorer and is not part of the IE7 plan. The Outlook Express team is hard at work on great functionality for the new version of Outlook Express, which is shipping with the next release of Windows. There are no plans to ship the new version of Outlook Express before the next release of Windows. The Outlook Express newsgroup is a great place for discussion about that product and to leave feedback for that team.

We’ll share more details about IE7 as we get further along with the project.

Thanks
-Dave

Comments (138)

  1. Anonymous says:

    Hey folks — WIndows 2000 Pro —

    I work with 3 different corp. customers who each has *THOUSANDS* of desktops and not one of them is XP as far as I know.

    all running Windows 2000 Pro; Not planning on changing any time soon as far as I know.

    so I think that yes Win2k may be older but if you have major busines customers running it then you need to keep supporting it for a while yet…

    Heck One of them only just started using IE due to a vendor reqirement.

    they do mail and most web with netscape 4 inside the office!

  2. Anonymous says:

    to be honest, i’m completely disapointed that OE7 wont be released with IE7. Having to wait until Longhorn is a big disapointment. Might be time to move to a new e-mail client.

    OE is a good email client, but it is getting a bit dated and in need of a revamp, so I guess I’ll be changing to another one.

    Denny, i think we can gather this is a financial move of only making IE 7 for XP, meaning they hope people with older operating systems will upgrade.

  3. Anonymous says:

    This post is weak arrogant and full of hot air. Who let’s this guy post?

    "have nothing to announce at this time." What’s new?

    OE is a "separate product team" Way to take responsibility guys. Not.

    "The OE team is hard at work" Yeah right, how can we tell? Are they saying anything? Anywhere? Hello?

  4. Anonymous says:

    While I can’t speak for Microsoft (y’know, cuz I don’t work for them and all that), I think you are partially right. I suspect it is a financial move to try and move users to XP but it’s also a financial move in the sense of the development time (and costs) that go into testing it on older OS configurations. Which also makes it a time issue. It takes time to test and therefore with less configurations to test under the faster the new version can be released.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Translation from ieblog doubleplusungood speak to english:

    "But we have nothing to announce at this time" = "Yes, we will port IE7 to Win2K, the reason we’re not committing now is to ‘show we listen’ near product launch time, to get that tiny sliver of goodwill we desperately need"

    The spin here easily beats that of any sleazy government or politican!

    And why *doesn’t* OE have a team blog? Web browsing and email/news go hand in hand. Or does a competing product need 25 million downloads before you consider it a threat, instead of a measly 4 million?

  6. Anonymous says:

    I think this is the first time IE will be released without an updated OE.

    I hereby suggested all OE users switch to another email client until the microcrap staff start listening.

    Jonathan a lot of companies never upgraded to XP, stuck with 2000 because of problems with XP. And what happens next year, will they then be pressured by these kinds of stunts to upgrade to longhorn.

    Slowly considering dumping microsoft and going to linux or apple, something i never thought i would say.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Is this all we get on

    "What makes IE7 on Win2K so hard anyway?"

    The previous post, entitled

    What have you guys been doing since IE6?

    (point 1 from the IE7 comments review post)

    was pretty informative.

    This is the blog for a whole development team, not an individual. You have the resources to do a better job.

    If you want to clarify a tiny point in a previous post use a clearly labeled UPDATE to a post.

    At least address the points you yourselves have identified (ignoring so many others in the process!) properly.

    Also, just because you’re releasing IE7 doesn’t mean you should stop blogging about previous IE releases.

    Stop treating your readers with so little respect. Please blog more professionally.

    If you don’t have time because you’re working on IE7 I suggest you hire a full-time IE marketing type person who will post regularly and actually answer questions and respond to comments (not just for IEBlog, but elsewhere too). In fact, do it anyway, IE badly needs people with ‘marketing skills’.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Why should every OS need a separate version of IE7? My version of Firefox sits nicely on a USB drive, allowing me to bring my browser/favorites/thunderbird email client to every single windows OS with a functioning USB connector.

    You’d really think they’d try to simplify IE so it doesn’t really need com components registered, the registry cluttered, and who really knows what else? just for browsing the web.

  9. Anonymous says:

    oliver, unfortunately modular design is great for the geeks but not particularly convenient for the suits :(

  10. Anonymous says:

    DElyMyth – /dev/null » Internet Explorer 7, solo per Windows XP

  11. Anonymous says:

    "Many of these we are not ready to answer and discuss at this time"

    You really are risking people getting so bored by this answer that they get fed up of waiting. I understand that there are issues with making promises, but you need to find a way around this before the IE7 release becomes a bit of a damp squib.

    I want you to win me back to IE, but you aren’t trying very hard.

  12. Anonymous says:

    I’ve just bought Mac Mini. 7 (or more…) different browsers work on it, so there is a plenty to choose from. No waiting. No security problems. Now.

  13. Anonymous says:

    yilesqe, couldn’t agree more.

    Examples of team blogs done well:

    http://weblogs.asp.net/exchange

    They post a phenomenal amount of in-depth techie stuff, very regularly

    http://weblogs.asp.net/BCLTeam/

    Great stuff, fairly frequent

    http://weblogs.asp.net/xmlteam

    Again, good stuff, not updated too frequently, with a good mix of ‘team intro/biography’

    Good individual blogs:

    http://weblogs.asp.net/michkap

    A one-man internationalization army

    http://weblogs.asp.net/heatherleigh

    Great advice

    http://weblogs.asp.net/oldnewthing

    http://weblogs.asp.net/larryosterman

    http://weblogs.asp.net/ericlippert

    Cool all-round stuff from experienced folks

    etc etc etc

    ieblog, OTOH, just posts ‘We can’t say anything about anything’ repeatedly. This is absolutely ridiculous, there’s plenty to talk about without going anywhere NEAR future releases. I’ve seen dozens of good suggestions for blog posts on here. Sort it out.

    PS Your competition blogs far better than you:

    http://feedhouse.mozillazine.org/

  14. Anonymous says:

    "(…) on this blog we have heard the requests for support of Windows 2000 but have nothing to announce at this time."

    I don’t get it.

    Are there big fundamental changes in the win32 api between win2k and Win XP, that make it difficult to port the render engine ?

    And still, why is the render engine platform dependent anyway ? iirc the MacOS and Win32 versions of IE use a completely different engine, WHY ?

  15. Anonymous says:

    I am posting this from Firefox. I have no intention of going back to IE when version 7 comes out. I am encouraging my existing clients to switch to Firefox. This blog has become a very useful resource in those discussions. It really clarifies the position that Microsoft has taken in relation to their business needs. It makes my job easier. Keep up the good FUD work 😉

    Thanks

    Tom

  16. Anonymous says:

    Well, this is the kind of strategy that’ll get MS killed for sure. You try to MAKE people buy your new product by dropping all the support and feature extensions for the old product so that it in time becomes a dead end street for those wishing to run the newer software. What is supposed to make people switch is the fact that the new product is actually a BETTER product, containing so many under-the-hood changes that people will WANT to buy it.

  17. Anonymous says:

    To respond to Denny, the customers you have that are all Win2k, would they upgrade just the browser, but not the OS? What I’ve seen is that most customers will only do the browser when they are doing the client OS as well.

    As far as supporting only XP SP2, I don’t see it as only a financial move. Yes, there are a lot of Win2k customers that Microsoft would like to upgrade. However, eventually MS has to move their platform forward. Look at Apple, those guys are absolutely awful about supporting old hardware and OS.

  18. Anonymous says:

    "Jonathan a lot of companies never upgraded to XP, stuck with 2000 because of problems with XP. And what happens next year, will they then be pressured by these kinds of stunts to upgrade to longhorn."

    Such an idiot aren’t you? What problems with XP? It very stable here.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Blogging only works if you’re planning on being open, it’s not a case that you have to give all your plans to the public but an announcement on some of your plans would surely help get people interested.

    As for outlook express it does seem like you’re putting that still on the back burner, if Thunderbird gains some more popularity then will you reconsider?

    How can we get excited without any firm plans or features, any screenshots of proposed functionality, etc? Why get excited when there’s no evidence that IE7 will even be as good as Firefox 1.0

    I remember back in the browser war days you were so keen on supporting as many platforms you could to gain marketshare except for Linux which back then you liked to pretend it didn’t exist. At one time there were ports of IE to Solaris unix as well as the now discontinued version of IE for Mac OS. You even kept up Windows 3.1 support until Netscape stopped supporting that platform. Now you can’t even support Windows 2000.

    Personally I think given an option of upgrading to XP or using Firefox people will go for the firefox option, so you may really, really wish to reconsider.

  20. Anonymous says:

    I don’t see the sense of rushing out Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, plus the Server editions too, why not just wait until IE 7.0 is ready and just bundle them with those updated versions of Windows client and server.

    Plus, with the disappointing compatibility issues going on with XP Pro x64, I would give it more time rather than release it with so much problems.

  21. Anonymous says:

    Well, looks like the IE team has already strayed from covering the 5 or 6 topics they said they were going to tackle.

    This post should have been regarding "What makes IE7 on Win2K so hard anyway?" (Honestly, I waiting for the standards answer myself)

    Instead we get fluff, and crap about how OE is "not our responsibility".

    To hell with you guys. Delete this coment I don’t care, this needs to be said.

    Listening to customers my ass… Bill, are you reading this?

  22. Anonymous says:

    "a lot of companies never upgraded to XP, stuck with 2000 because of problems with XP."

    No. A lot of companies looked at XP and said "it hasn’t changed enough, it’s not worth the hassle."

    That was certainly the situation here, XPSP2 has finally brought enough of a distinction to make it worth doing. Hopefully IE7 will only continue along those lines.

  23. Anonymous says:

    As the dev of the IE7 have taken more than any version before, it seems that’s gonna freak the world …

  24. Anonymous says:

    You go on and on about how you listen to your customers.

    Well listen hard. Your customers want a new OE as well as a new IE.

    Saying its not our responsibility is stupid. What would you think about a company if the tires of a car had a problem and the tire people said: "Oh, its not our fault, its the axles"?

    OE and IE are two sides of the same coin. Historically they have been intricately linked. The newsgroup you linked to has Internet Explorer in two places in its name.

    Persuade OE people to blog please, preferably a team blog. That newsgroup you linked to is hardly a paragon of interactivity.

    This is what your customers want. Time for you to listen. (Port IE7 to Win2000 too).

  25. Anonymous says:

    I surprised by so many who complain about IE7 not being offered for Win2K. They ask why is it so hard. There is one simple answer and it goes back to the whole DOJ Anti-trust case. Because MS decided to bolt IE into the OS as a marketing ploy to gain marketshare on Netscape (which is really the only legitimate reason for doing this), it means that an update to IE is an update to the OS. An update means updating OS level DLL’s. This means regression testing, etc. Since there are probably very few resources dedicated these days to Win2K support, there simply isn’t resources to do all this testing on the OS. If MS would have kept it as a seperate product, then it would have made it simplier to update across OS versions.

    So, I reiterate my recommendations for improvements and add some new I have though of since my post on your previous entry regarding listening to customers:

    1. Make IE its own product, independent of the OS Version.

    2. Fully support current Web Standards (CSS, DOM, etc.)

    3. Remove ActiveX and/or make it so installation of ActiveX controls are not automatic but require user intervention. Give the user control.

    4. Fully support PNG transparency.

    5. Add new features, such as tabbed browsing and simple extension framework, like Firefox.

    6. Add a new feature currently not in other browsers — allow control via the web page of page header and footers to allow repeatable document elements across pages when printing, not just within tables. With industry moving to using CSS for layouts instead of tables, need to develop a method within HTML to have repeatable headers and footers for HTML documents when they print out. I believe there are specifications already in the HTML, DOM, and CSS standards. No one has implemented this in the browser.

    7. Enhance Browser form controls to allow for richer environment. For example, the select box should allow for typing of one letter to go to an item and possibly allow optional insert of a new item to list (i.e., work like select box in normal applications). Add Rich Text Editing a text area field, instead of having to add on some third party product. This should default to normal text area field on browsers that don’t support it.

    8. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do listen to what your customers are stating. It is time for IE to show some leadership again. The product has been too stale for too long. PLEASE make the product stand on its own and not just some feature to sell the OS. My desire would be that IE would be the best browser period, irrespective of OS. Make it available at the same quality on the other desktop OS’s (e.g., Mac OSX and Linux).

  26. Anonymous says:

    How about native SVG support? its only been out for 3 years. if Adobe can do it, I’m sure MS can too

  27. Anonymous says:

    "The Outlook Express team is hard at work on great functionality for the new version of Outlook Express"

    We are hard at work! :) I’m finding out today about getting together a team blog. I haven’t seen anyone from our team respond to this yet so I’m just linking to my personal blog for now but I’ll update it when I know more.

  28. Anonymous says:

    Win2K users can go to Firefox. It is an excellent and modern browser, and an able substitute for a lack of IE7. The more mindshare Firefox captures, the more Microsoft is going to be forced to do well by their Win2K users (who, via Licensing 6.0 are probably mostly paying customers already anyway.)

  29. Anonymous says:

    Internet Explorer 7.0 won’t run just on Windows XP Service Pack 2, according to a new posting on Microsoft’s "IE Blog." It also will work on follow-ons to SP2, which include Windows XP Professional x64 and Windows Server 2003 Service…

  30. Anonymous says:

    Joe, thank you for listening. I can’t leave this comment on your personal blog because I don’t have a Passport, but an OE team blog would be truly brilliant. If not, then please consider getting a blogs.msdn.com personal blog, which is more visible and can attract more feedback.

    Please try to release OE7 with IE7!

  31. Anonymous says:

    Hi Joe and other OE people reading

    Please let me have ‘filter folders’ like with Gmail or Thunderbird Saved Search, they are awesome.

    Also please put RSS support in OE instead of in IE – it is more natural in a mail client than a browser.

    Actually, why isn’t there a system-wide ‘default RSS reader’? That way when I add a feed the apps won’t fight over who ‘owns’ it, and everyone can read their feeds the way they want to.

  32. Anonymous says:

    Internet Explorer can’t get any better, won’t get any better, and shouldn’t get any better. IE was at one point an alright product, but it should have been standalone, now its become the groin of the operating system. a nice kick and the whole thing is on the ground, whincing and complaining that its stomach hurts. Now on to why it won’t get any better. It won’t get any better because you guys won’t tell anybody what your doing, you aren’t listening to any of our suggestions, and you refuse to give Firefox any credit. Maybe since you guys are being such Richard-Heads about making anything for Windows 2000, you should do something un-microsoft, like *gasp* recommend people using it. that’ll never happen, but a nice thought for those you are leaving completly out of the loop. and thinking out of the box (i’m not a programmer, but aspire to one day take that road) couldn’t you just put the DLLs in another spot, or create a different spot/file type to put those much needed improvements in? maybe just a folder that keeps the new IE running without messing with anything that currently keeps Win2k running. and finally, it shouldn’t get any better. ActiveX was considered a way to make it better back in the day and think of where that got us.

  33. Anonymous says:

    IE is a lost cause, but at the very least please natively support MathML (in addition to the usual requests for PNG, CSS and SVG). Not that anyone here listens anyway, this blog is a farce just like IE itself.

    As for OE, it still has a chance, it is still fairly usable. My basic suggestions:

    1) Load test better, OE munges large mailboxes.

    2) Find as you Type (for individual messages) in the Preview pane.

    3) The searching needs to be improved generally, its quite slow at the moment and it can’t construct complicated queries easily.

    4) Better autofiltering of mail into the right subfolders.

    5) A (optional) tabbed interface would be useful – perhaps even more so in email clients than browsers.

    7) A big button on the main toolbar which says ‘Backup’ (with nice friendly wizards).

    8) Rudimentary calendaring (on a personal level, nowhere near Outlook) with ability to sync with PDAs. Maybe share events with MSN Messenger buddies, if you can keep a reasonable privacy policy (ie, not stored on Microsoft servers).

    9) Use a nonmodal Information Bar for non-critical messages instead of dialog boxes where possible.

    10) Better native spam filtering.

    11) Better multiple monitor support – I often want to open incoming mail on one screen, open newsgroup messages in another, and compose on my third.

    12) The usual requests for extra skinnability, extenstion framework, and general flexibility.

    Thanks for listening. If you do blog (and I hope you do) then please look around here for an example of how not to do it first.

    justin

  34. Anonymous says:

    Is anyone else getting bored of this constant IE bashing? And what was that Tom character on about using this blog as means of promoting Firefox does any serious Mozilla user want to be associated with this and other such tactics? I really don’t understand where all this anger comes from it’s more like the yelling of a game console fan boy than that of reasonable human beings.

    The IE team seem to know the problems, and maybe they’ll do something about them; we’ll see with the beta.

    But this constant smug superior attitude of hardcore Firefox users and some actual representatives of the community is just what Microsoft were slated for before. It’s tiresome and surely a turn off for mainstream users who really can barely see the difference between IE and Firefox anyway – and like it or not they are the majority customers not evangelising web devs.

  35. Anonymous says:

    Alex, I think the problem is that we actually *don’t* have any indication whatsoever that the IE team know the problems.

    It seems to me that if they did, the very *first* thing they would have decided when they decided to make an IE7 would be things like "We’re going to fix PNG alpha" and "We’re going to fix the stupid layering behavior of <selects>".

    It’s been several weeks now since IE7 was announced – I forget the exact date. If the team didn’t think these basic bugs were important enough to be part of the release goals from *day 1*, I don’t think they *do* understand the problems.

    And that’s what we’re all complaining about here.

    Really, IE has very little credibility any more regardless. This blog had the potential to change that, but it seems like the team is just trying to dig themselves in deeper…

  36. Anonymous says:

    Who is this thin skinned Alex character with the irony deficiency 😛 This non announcement blog entry is just FUD. MS originally built their market share by listening and supporting the developer and sysadmin communities. Those communities are pretty ticked off, since they have been stonewalled for the past few years.

    The only reason this blog exists, is because MS is beginning to realize that they screwed up. Stay with IE if you like. If you only want to hear nice things about IE, then don’t read the comments on this blog.

    I have yet to see an actual answer in this blog. All that MS is providing is a regurgitation of the questions that have been posed to them. I am beyond bored with that. I would rather have no entries, than the continuation of this steam of pap.

  37. Anonymous says:

    Actually, Tom, several comments to other posts asked if IE7 is for XPSP2 only, or if it would be available for Windows x64 Edition and WS03 SP1.

    So this post is an "actual answer" to that question.

  38. Anonymous says:

    If the ‘softies came out and said, "IE7 is a panic release intended to keep FireFox from luring away too many people before Longhorn ships," that would be a refreshing burst of honesty.

    If that’s *not* why they’re doing it, a detailed explanation of the real reason(s) would be most welcome.

  39. Anonymous says:

    "This non announcement blog entry is just FUD"

    Fear Uncertainty and Doubt? For whom?

    Seems a strange criticism of the harmless IE developer blogs, whilst Firefox advocates are busy trying to claim that IE is buggy and insecure.

  40. Anonymous says:

    "This post is weak arrogant and full of hot air. Who let’s this guy post?"

    The ultimate in hypocricy! Hah, what a joker

  41. Anonymous says:

    DaveP says "Instead we get fluff, and crap about how OE is "not our responsibility". To hell with you guys. Delete this coment I don’t care, this needs to be said. Listening to customers my ass… Bill, are you reading this? "

    Dave, maybe you’re not familiar with large software companies (MS is not the only one), but many employees in a software company are focused on just one product or just one part of a product. These guys are unlikely to know OE b/c they didn’t build it or maintain it now. Can the Firefox devs tell me about how Thunderbird handles a specific sequence in the spam filtering code?

  42. Anonymous says:

    New Microsoft product will run on new Microsoft operating system.

    Film at 11.

  43. Anonymous says:

    Bruce Morgan [MSFT] wrote:

    >Actually, Tom, several comments to other posts asked if IE7 is for XPSP2 only

    The lions share of your customers are interested in IE for operating systems that you have "ACTUALLY" released and they are currently running. People with large deployments of Windows 2000 are "Uncertain" and in "Doubt" about whether there will be an IE 7 for them or not. They "Fear" that any effort expended on an alernative solution may be unwise if MS is about to release an upgraded IE for them.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FUD

    Rather than provide an "actual answer" of yes or no, that businesses can base a decision on, this post just danced around the whole issue.

  44. Anonymous says:

    Oooh, I’ve been readying my flame-thrower for this one – it really gets to me the way Windows 2000 is treated like a ‘down-level’ OS.

    So many people don’t even realise the much overhyped Windows XP (AKA NT 5.1) isn’t even a new version, it’s merely a revision of Windows 2000 (AKA NT 5.0). I like and use NT 5.0 because for the most part it works like I want – the UI is fast and responsive, it displays useful information and works in a generally refined manner. NT 5.1 does not work like I want, and I do not like it (UI bogs, Explorer task pane, search dog, what do you want to do? cd detection, ‘hung’ window fakeness, start menu recent programs – what is the quick launch for?, dopey BIG window buttons, hap-hazardly implemented ‘pretty’ transparent icons, half-baked support for new visuals – some programs have them – some don’t, etc, etc).

    Take a look at some of the upcoming and recent releases from Microsoft, WMP 10 – only for NT 5.1, Avalon visuals – to be released for NT 5.1 only, why, why, why? It’s not like the graphics system was completely rewritten for the revision – it just had stuff tacked on it – more ***Ex functions.

    It is pathetic software still for sale is not supported by it’s developer. And to support the very latest version of Windows only, is attrocious. I didn’t pay AUD$299 for the Windows operating system to be left high and dry a few years down the track.

  45. Anonymous says:

    Great blog article.

    Worthless comments.

  46. Anonymous says:

    Stuart,

    I’m not saying people shouldn’t complain – but honestly your example of full PNG support – either it’s in or it’s out. Sure it’d be great to know but it’s no silver bullet, you’d still have legacy issues to contend with either way.

    I think explaination of issues is a great thing but much of what appears here is the unhelpful in the style of "full standards support and PNG" I expect that most people aren’t even sure which standards they’re talking about; especially when they call for CSS 3 – which is work in progress and it’s incorrect implementation could easily cause exactly the issues seen with CSS 2 today.

    Really this behviour is a unpleasent reflection of a minority of FireFox users that do the community no credit. Tellingly other browser communities such as Safari, Opera (and they actually have more of a reason to be upset with MS) do not feel the same need to come here and do the same.

  47. Anonymous says:

    Some things you guys ought to realize is that as far as I know the IE team, except for security updating, has been pretty much disassembled until now.

    And XP is the only one that handles transparency in the base OS, with no need for directx. That’s one of the main reasons I was told (if not the only one) for the PNG alpha problem.

  48. Anonymous says:

    well it really foolish for companies to not upgrade to XP, there absolutely no problem with the OS its the technical team who r not capable to handle that.

  49. Anonymous says:

    The Microsoft team is now gonna go thru Firefox with a fine-toothed comb, and do a feature-by-feature copy.

    No thanks, I have shifted to Firefox for good.

  50. Anonymous says:

    OE Outdated? Try Thunderbird.

    NO FLAMING HERE!!!!

    But I tell you, while it shall NE-VE-R (as in Nevah) compete with a full-fledged Outlook in its current state, it is nonetheless a very powerful and resource-packed client.

    Try it before adopting it. That’s all I ask.

  51. Anonymous says:

    tc said:

    "… it means that an update to IE is an update to the OS. An update means updating OS level DLL’s. This means regression testing, etc. Since there are probably very few resources dedicated these days to Win2K support, there simply isn’t resources to do all this testing on the OS."

    Which I find funny as Win2K is supposedly a supported operating system for at least a little while longer yet. I thought one of the advantages of using Windows, IE, and other MS software was that we had this great huge corporation to provide this support?

    As far as what I’d like to see.

    1) Fully correct support for all the web standards that IE claims/attempts to support.

    2) Support for the full PNG standard.

    3) Better XHTML compliance internally (ie: in text-editor component, and File->Save Page)

  52. Anonymous says:

    Maybe it wouldn’t be so hard to get IE7 to run on Windows 2000 if it hadn’t been integrated into Windows. Maybe it wouldn’t be so hard to keep IE secure and keep it’s features up to date if it wasn’t tied to Windows 5 year development cycles. Maybe my company wouldn’t be developing the new version of it’s web application on FireFox (the current version is IE-only) if we as developers and our users wern’t fed up all around with the direction MS has taken IE.

  53. Anonymous says:

    "The Microsoft team is now gonna go thru Firefox with a fine-toothed comb, and do a feature-by-feature copy."

    So on one hand, Firefox advocates complain that IE doesn’t have the features of IE, but on the other hand, if IE does implement those features it’s now the bad guy? Damned if they do, damned if they don’t, right?

    Give MS a break. Firefox is using a vast quantity of innovative browser features that MS was first to implement, including CSS, P3P and MS’s extensions to Javascript like the XMLHttpRequest object and innerHTML property. Don’t forget that MS has worked heavily with the W3C to set standards, and the reason it walked all over Netscape back in the late 90’s is because IE supported W3C standards and was technically superior back then — and what’s more, it was free. If anyone suggests they’d rather pay for their web-browser, and MS hurt consumers, then they’re a fool!

    The growth of Firefox has shown that Firefox have not destroyed competition. IE7 will show that MS make technically superior products, and make them available to a large demographic at little cost – and in doing so, dominate the market fairly.

    Stop the MS-hating and get back to patching those security holes in Firefox!

  54. Anonymous says:

    *correction: So on one hand, Firefox advocates complain that IE doesn’t have the features of Firefox, but on the other hand, if IE does implement those features it’s now the bad guy? Damned if they do, damned if they don’t, right?

  55. Anonymous says:

    **another correction (!): The growth of Firefox has shown that Microsoft has not destroyed competition. IE7 will show that MS make technically superior products, and make them available to a large demographic at little cost – and in doing so, dominate the market fairly.

  56. Anonymous says:

    "The Microsoft team is now gonna go thru Firefox with a fine-toothed comb, and do a feature-by-feature copy."

    I would love it if MS did this. I am definetly not one of the "Damned if they do, damned if they don’t" folks. The gist of my previous post was that MS DID have the best browser when they defeated Netscape – and once they had won, they stopped truly innovating on the product. Instead we got dubious "innovations" that were Windows-focused instead of web-focused.

    If IE7 introduces features that make it more innovative (or at least as innovative) as FireFox and other browsers (not to mention properly securing it once and for all), I’ll certainly move back towards using it and recommend to my company that we do as well.

  57. Anonymous says:

    It didn’t cost the Mozilla Team a penny to make Firefox…

  58. Anonymous says:

    I don’t think anyone here is disputing that IE was once a leading browser. IE4, then 5, then 6 kicked some serious Netscape butt! It was IE that was supporting the open standards at the time (like CSS, png graphics, and XML) while Netscape was, even while bleating about standards, coming up with their own html additions.

    And for the record, I started using XMLHttpRequest (and its server variant) when it first came out. I thought it was the coolest thing.

    That said, these events are now long in the past. Whether one likes it or not, it remains a fact that IE’s standard compliance has not kept up with that put on offer by competitive products. We are not wrong to come here and lobby for some improvement.

    And I will not be scared off from suggesting that the return of MSDN-junkie developers like me to the IE fold does depend on some of that improvement. That may be an unlikeable reality.

    But it is a reality.

  59. Anonymous says:

    Keep it this way! Does anyone notice how win2k w/sp1 is almost NEVER on security bulletins — don’t fool yourself into thinking that people don’t realize this fact and purposely stay away from XP/IE6. They don’t want IE[anything] unless they’re running in-house activeX apps.

  60. Anonymous says:

    Tim:

    <em>Dave, maybe you’re not familiar with large software companies (MS is not the only one), but many employees in a software company are focused on just one product or just one part of a product. These guys are unlikely to know OE b/c they didn’t build it or maintain it now. Can the Firefox devs tell me about how Thunderbird handles a specific sequence in the spam filtering code?</em>

    Thanks for completely missing my point. Let me rehash:

    1. I don’t give a lick about OE, this is the IE blog. I certainly don’t expect the IE team to know anything about it either.

    2. The IE did state however, that they would be covering the topics as layed out in a previous post.

    3. Had they been interested in "responding to customers", covering topic #2, which according to them should be addressing the very thing most of the comments are addressing (ie, Lack of IE7 in win2k)

    4. Because of this, I doubt very highly that we’ll get to see topic #3, Standards support, which is what a lot of folk are waiting for anyway.

    Hence, to hell with them, they’re wasting mine time, and not listening to us at all.

    Simple enough for ya? :-)

  61. Anonymous says:

    Chris, Fiery – play nice, or I’ll delete more of your comments.

  62. Anonymous says:

    Dave, Dean listed the topics we wanted to cover "in the next few weeks". That wasn’t intended to say we were not going to post on other topics as well.

  63. Anonymous says:

    Craig Brown: "And XP is the only one that handles transparency in the base OS, with no need for directx. That’s one of the main reasons I was told (if not the only one) for the PNG alpha problem."

    It really depends what you call the "base OS". Windows 2000 introduced a lot of OS-level transparency features (layered windows, alpha blending GDI functions, etc.) Windows XP introduced GDI+ which has support for transparent PNGs already. GDI+ is redistrubtable and fully functional on Windows 2000.

    Holy Roller: "Does anyone notice how win2k w/sp1 is almost NEVER on security bulletins"

    Windows 2000 SP1 is no longer supported, I believe they only support SP3 and SP4 currently.

  64. Anonymous says:

    Bruce: Of course, but dare I suggest, after reviewing the feedback on this blog that you make those 5 topics somewhat of a priority.

  65. Anonymous says:

    OK, I stand corrected…somewhat.

    Personally I think the only reason it won’t be on win2k is the same reason that it was (until recently) only going to be on Longhorn…the extra effort involved putting it together.

    I’m glad they’re NOT waiting until Longhorn, even if I do use alternate browsers right now.

  66. Anonymous says:

    I’ve been using Firefox since it was first released. Same goes for Thunderbird. I’m never going back to IE. As far as windows. All of my machines, including wife’s and kid’s machines. They all run Firefox. I’m raising a generation of future opensource supporters. Linux, freeBSD, Mac OSX is the future.

  67. Anonymous says:

    Alex, although I do use Firefox, I specifically didn’t mention it because it’s irrelevant to my main point. I’m coming from the perspective of a web developer, and as such firefox is almost irrelevant – it’s great that it exists but I can’t really take advantage of it’s features because it’s still a minority browser, impressive gains notwithstanding.

    And you’re right, there would still be legacy issues to contend with, but for a lot of stuff (specifically, in my case, the administrative side of CMS software) you can safely assume "the latest version of IE or firefox or occasionally safari" (I haven’t yet encountered any requests for opera support), but you can’t assume "firefox".

    Guess which of these four is always the problem when it comes to trying to do anything clever?

    To pick just the latest example – I wanted a toolbar that stayed fixed at the top of the screen. I used position: fixed and z-index and everything worked fine – except of course that it isn’t fixed at all in IE. I was going to work around that with some Javascript, but then I get bitten by the windowed select boxes that float over top of the toolbar and look stupid. In the end I just decided not to bother with fixing the toolbar at all in IE (putting it in a whole separate document to make an iframe that could float over the selects was just too much work) so the user experience of our product is inhibited.

    And in that situation it’s our product that ends up looking bad, not IE.

    The only difference Firefox makes to this equation is that now it’s worth implementing the feature at all because there is an appreciable audience that *will* see it. But IE would still be frustrating to code for whether firefox existed or not; the existence of a credible alternative just throws its limitations into sharper relief.

  68. Anonymous says:

    "I’m raising a generation of future opensource supporters. Linux, freeBSD, Mac OSX is the future."

    Let’s just hope your future generation of supporters are not as single-minded as you are. In my experience, Microsoft software fans seem to be professional developers and representatives from business. Open-source fans tend to be academics and cause-advocates, who rave about anything with the OSS label, and club together to fight the ‘evil’ corporates like MS. And they think they’re doing it for the sake of consumers, or business .. clueless fools!

    And by the way, you mentioned Mac OSX — that’s very far from OSS! Apple are more monopolistic than Microsoft – they make the hardware, the OS and the browser for their platform! But anyway, that suits me – it all works very well. I’ve owned a Mac laptop for several months. It’s not quite as stable as a Windows PC, and not quite so backwardly compatible, but the OS is otherwise great

  69. Anonymous says:

    Oh, and I’ve also never asked for "full standards support" because I know how stupid, or at least naive, that question is. I’ve watched the mozilla developers struggle with incompatibilities between different standards, standards that make no sense or contradict existing behavior, standards which if applied break 90% of the web, and standards that would require man-decades of work to implement. Anyone who tells you Firefox supports 100% of CSS2 is misinformed. (100% of CSS2.1 is a possibility once CSS2.1 has been finalized for a year or so, but it’s not there yet – and that’s only possible because CSS2.1 was explicitly designed to remove the unimplementable features and contradictions from CSS2).

    Same thing goes for HTML4, SVG, MathML, heck, even HTML2 (you need a separate extension to get support for <link rel="next"> etc). And I’m talking about the support from *Firefox*. Getting "100% standards support" like people claim to want is *impossible*. But just because it’s impossible to be perfect doesn’t mean it’s reasonable to settle for support that’s so far behind the state of the art.

    When I complain about things IE doesn’t do I make a point to target things that are possible and should be *easy* for a team with the experience of the IE team. Windowless select boxes, fixed positioning and PNG alpha are my top requests. These are all well-defined, implementable, and implemented by every other modern browser. Other people have similarly well-defined and reasonable requests. These shouldn’t be lumped in with the "Implement 100% support of every relevant web standard or I’m sticking with firefox" style comments.

  70. Anonymous says:

    I don’t see the sense of calling IE 7 in Longhorn version 7, since it will be significantly different and have more user experience and security features.

    To save Windows Longhorn from being called another XP, please make sure IE in Longhorn is known as version 8.

    I still believed Windows XP should have been called version 6. Your versioning of software is really whack!

    Thank You

  71. Anonymous says:

    >> Open-source fans tend to be academics and cause-advocates, who rave about anything with the OSS label, and club together to fight the ‘evil’ corporates like MS. And they think they’re doing it for the sake of consumers, or business .. clueless fools!

    And then we have the proprietary software fans who resort to name-calling, because they know it’s the only weapon they have left in their losing battle against the general public, or as you so tactly put it, the "clueless fools". All 25 million+ of them.

  72. Anonymous says:

    Microsoft has the only developers in the world incapable of making a program run on Windows 2000 and Windows XP. Not only that, but they’re incapable of making it run on XPSP0 or XPSP1.

  73. Anonymous says:

    I couldn’t overlook this amusing remark either:

    >> And by the way, you mentioned Mac OSX — that’s very far from OSS! Apple are more monopolistic than Microsoft – they make the hardware, the OS and the browser for their platform!

    Apple’s operating system is based on open source. You can download their kernel from http://opendarwin.org/. They also have http://opensource.apple.com – something Microsoft have no real equivalent of. Hardly "very far from OSS" when you look at the truth, is it?

  74. Anonymous says:

    "Apple’s operating system is based on open source"

    Apple have based their kernel on OSS code, but Apple’s operating system as a whole is sold for profit and the source is not openly available on a GPL-style license. I’m not at all suggesting that Apple pay lip service to OSS, I’m just clarifying that it is wrong to call OS X an open-source operating system.

    By the way, the second link you sent appears to be wrong – it should be http://www.apple.com/opensource

    You’re right that MS don’t appear to have an equivalent of Mac’s OSS web page, and they probably don’t use any OSS code in Windows. Tellingly, I have found that Windows XP is actually more stable than Mac OS X. Also seems statistically more secure according to Secunia and TechWorld:

    http://www.techworld.com/security/news/index.cfm?newsid=1798

  75. Anonymous says:

    I feel that the things the IE team needs to concentrate their efforts on is simply the rendering engine:

    Fix the rendering bugs

    Add more support for web standards to make developer lives easier

    Better support for PNGs (the directx workaround is horrible)

    The one thing I wish IE would come with… an ability to override and stop web sites that feel they need to resize your browser window. It’s so annoying when I come across a site that does that. Running at 1600×1200 I really don’t care for the browser to fill the whole screen. =P

  76. Anonymous says:

    "And then we have the proprietary software fans who resort to name-calling, because they know it’s the only weapon they have left in their losing battle against the general public, or as you so tactly put it, the "clueless fools". All 25 million+ of them"

    Ooh, that’s a big number! Assuming Firefox has, say 5% of market share and IE has 90% (just for the sake of argument), that means there are _500 million_ IE users, right? So the ‘general public’ in this case would logically seem to be the IE users rather than the Firefox users. So, when I refer to ‘clueless fools,’ I’m certainly not referring to the general public, since most of them use IE. I’m also not referring to Firefox users at large.

    I am, as I said before, referring to the OSS fanboys who rally behind any new mascot of their cause. These guys probably lost tens of thousands of potential Firefox users by raving about the browser when it was in beta stage and riddled with UI bugs.

  77. Anonymous says:

    Numbers mean nothing to the FSF… the OSI thinks differently, but I agree with the FSF.

  78. Anonymous says:

    >> These guys probably lost tens of thousands of potential Firefox users by raving about the browser when it was in beta stage and riddled with UI bugs.

    OK, but these people got the ball rolling… or snowball. The self-proclaimed biggest ISP in the US investing in Gecko technology now and several others are distributing it. The main reason IE is used by half a billion people is because it was forced on them from the beginning, and/or they weren’t made aware of alternatives and therefore don’t know anything else. Now that almost every corner of the world is talking about Firefox, those numbers are going to start slipping as more people abandon ship.

  79. Anonymous says:

    Chris Beach: "Tellingly, I have found that Windows XP is actually more stable than Mac OS X. Also seems statistically more secure"

    Windows XP more stable? Haha. Seriously, the stability in XP is excellent, and MS did good here, but OS X is by far less likely to crash, IMO.

    The stance you take on security is hilarious though. XP SP2 is the first instance of Windows that even remotely approaches *nix on security, and there’s still some rather large gaps. Try running a game without admin privs and see how far you get.

    Perhaps instead of reading soundbyte artcles, you should see what secunia is actually saying:

    OS X

    http://secunia.com/product/96/

    Win XP Pro

    http://secunia.com/product/22/

    The impact graphs are especially telling.

  80. Anonymous says:

    Just relax, its been done before, hack it to get it working under w2k, it’ll be done again. Oh and before I forget, I’m involved with 6 vendors working to get their IE web clients ported to firefox and we’re nearly there, so if MS bonks IE, FF will be coming in.

  81. Anonymous says:

    When Firefox gains a significant foothold in the marketshare… IE7 will come out breaking the standards that Firefox is trying fix.

  82. Anonymous says:

    Fiery – "When Firefox gains a significant foothold in the marketshare… IE7 will come out breaking the standards that Firefox is trying fix."

    Enough speculation and assumption – if you don’t know (and noone does) then don’t post!

  83. Anonymous says:

    Chris Beach,

    Yes, we don’t know, but IE have a history of messing up standards.

    I hope for their own sake that the IE developers are very careful not to mess up SVG or proper XHTML.

  84. Anonymous says:

    It seems this forum as become an incongruous mess of ie bashers. Seriously, get over firefox! Its not that astonishingly brilliant – its just something different after ten years straight of microsoft dominance. Frankly, I find the interface annoying compared to IE and its placement of the google search bar in the top right hand corner is a tad dumb. Furthermore, in order to perform security updates, the process required is cumbersome – you must uninstall the old version and download the new, secure version. It’s stupid especially considering it was a 1.0 to 1.0.1 update.

    Internet Explorer 7 will be a killer when it is released. IMO, most people are looking for ways to be attracted back to Internet Explorer rather than abandoning it completely.

  85. Anonymous says:

    actually, i used to think so, but now i’ve come to realise the blog is not people bashing ie or microsoft, but it’s about them expressing their complete disapointment, and that is part of customer relations, a part that microsoft need to start listening to. While they might be aiming more at the corporate customer, it is the home users that are slowly turning away, and where they go, the businesses will follow.

    BTW, the latest figures have IE at having 87% of the market, but as FF and other browsers start to take off in China that is expected to drop much further.

  86. Anonymous says:

    Richard: "the blog is not people bashing ie or microsoft, but it’s about them expressing their complete disapointment, and that is part of customer relations, a part that microsoft need to start listening to"

    This blog is full of people getting angry and offensive and presumptious about Microsoft and IE, whilst singing the praises of OSS and Firefox.

    If I was an IE developer getting this kind of response, I’d probably think ‘screw these guys’ and instead listen to the requests of businessmen who can articulate what they want, and provide genuine evidence of a requirement.

    I’m not saying that people don’t have a point about web standards support – indeed I think it is important for MS to implement PNG and a few bits of CSS2.1 (the non-contradictory, sensible bits). But in order for the developers to listen to this opinion we must make it in a coherent, non-offensive, helpful manner.

    The kiddies that come in here to ‘WOOT Firefox’ — they can f**k right off.

  87. Anonymous says:

    As opposed to the kiddies that come in here and tell people to "f" off?

  88. Anonymous says:

    "Other people have similarly well-defined and reasonable requests. These shouldn’t be lumped in with the "Implement 100% support of every relevant web standard or I’m sticking with firefox" style comments."

    >>

    I’d agree with this entirely and I was pretty much the feeling I was trying to get across. I often find such comments very informative.

    "i’ve come to realise the blog is not people bashing ie or microsoft, but it’s about them expressing their complete disapointment"

    >>

    Okay and people have a right to do so but now that somethings actually happening you’d hope that people could move on now – the bitterness in some of those posts should be reserved for messy divorces not web browsers.

    Personally in terms of disapointment I frankly think IE suffers more in comparison to rampant innovation of MSN Messenger team (look at where that’s gone since IE6 came out) rather than the often more cool headed frustration of web devs with rendering issues and flaws of implementation in the browser. Yes get the basics right but where is the next generation browser (XAML/XUL perhaps?).

  89. Anonymous says:

    I find the Microsoft hating posts pretty annoying. It would be nice if this blog could actually serve it’s purpose which is i guess to discuss ideas regarding the IE developpement.

    I am looking forward to the new release of IE and i will switch back to it without any problems if it’s better or equivalent to firefox for the ease of browsing.

    It’s a good thing for the users to have some browser competiting with IE, just chose the one you prefer that’s all. I don’t see why it should become a religious war each time miscrosoft plans a release of a new product.

  90. Anonymous says:

    I can understand why you might want to keep new features which other browsers don’t have secret.

    But basic things like rendering improvements shouldn’t be secret. It’s unfair of you not to inform web developers how you will improve CSS float support, for instance.

  91. Anonymous says:

    That’s a good point.

    If you try to lock people in and then keep them in the dark, they’ll just go toward the light from the other _open_ door.

  92. Anonymous says:

    Not people use IE on their own volition… You can’t download IE perse, it comes parasitically attached to the OS. Most people who use IE do not know there are alternatives… Chris here wants these people to stay in the dark. The people who praise Firefox aren’t forcing you to use the browser, we are presenting a better choice.

    Why do think my name is "Fiery Kitsune"… Think about it.

  93. Anonymous says:

    Chris – you do realize developers are a Microsoft constituency? One of the earliest and most loyal ones, irritable though we are?

    It isn’t just "businessmen" doing the purchasing decisions. What developers do has a LOT of influence. The blog may get rambunctious, and probably frustrating for Microsoft developers and project mgrs. But it has yet to be that even one of the Microsoft people feel this process lacks worth.

    To date, largely only you have suggested that.

  94. Anonymous says:

    I’m not at all suggesting this process lacks worth. The IE Blog is an excellent idea.

    I’m just frustrated by the comment pollution from OSS/Firefox fanboys. All they want is for IE to fail and their own product succeed. There’s a playground called spreadfirefox.com for that kind of zealotry.

  95. Anonymous says:

    Let me share a bit of advice for IE 7. For IE6 and others running under Wine and ReactOS I am pushing this for apps like IE.

    SANDBOX THE DAMN THING!

  96. Anonymous says:

    IE7 — please fix the bugs that cause the VSS debugger to get lost when debugging element behaviors.

    Hint: doImport() is broken so dynamically introducing behaviors into a page makes it impossible to use the VSS debugger.

  97. Anonymous says:

    Chris wrote:

    > I’m just frustrated by the comment pollution from OSS/Firefox fanboys.

    According to your blog, you main purpose here is to play devil’s advocate.

    I think it would be fair to characterize yourself as a IE college fanboy.

    I would hazard a guess that you pay little if any money for the MS software that you use at University.

    I have paid tens of thousands of dollars to MS over the past decade, and was coding APL before you were born. We won’t even talk about the corporate dollars I steered their way.

    I am tired of the non announcements, and evasion of legitimate customer complaints. I think MS should be delighted that we are even bothering to give them feedback. It means they have a hope of doing some damage control. Unfortunately, it looks like they are letting that chance slip away.

    So, spare us the righteous indignation, and leave the actual customers alone.

  98. Anonymous says:

    Just testing this out from the (Gecko) component of the NETSCAPE 8.0 BETA. Seems pretty funky! w00t!

    Yet another bad competitor for you poor poor people. I wonder what market share point will IE be forced to start thinking about supporting standards properly?

    And guess what? It works on Windows 2000!

  99. Anonymous says:

    "But in order for the developers to listen to this opinion we must make it in a coherent, non-offensive, helpful manner."

    Oh, come on.

    The developers know what’s bugging their customers, yet they keep awfully silent. They *know* they need standards support if they want to keep their market share, they *know* the market wants to hear this and they *know* it would restore confidence in IE if they just said it.

    But they still don’t, my guess: they won’t implement standards support because they can’t, because the basic architecture of IE is not up to it and it would mean a complete rewrite. Just look at the fact there are 2 render engines, one for Win32 and one for Mac, not one which can be used on both platforms, does that sound like a well-designed piece of software to you ?

  100. Anonymous says:

    here, here

  101. Anonymous says:

    IE 7??? What is the point? Is Microsoft going to rewrite IE properly from the ground up or is it just gonna be more patches for stuff that should never have been wrong in the first freaking place.

    Frankly, a major revision requires a major change, and there just isn’t anything major TO change.

    First there was ActiveX, great, then javascript, gotcha. What was new and novel about 5 and 6 again???

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not all that hot and bothered about Firefox either. A webbrowser is a web browser, there simply is not enough to differentiate the products to make any difference, which is why anti-MS politics is finally causing an erosion of the IE user base. people don’t have to loose any significant functionality to switch to a non MS option.

    Is firefox any more secure? Nope, apparently it is just has different bugs and less users. That is changing, and its starting to be worth going after firefox users, so much so that apparently popup advertizers are starting to target weaknesses in their browser.

    Frankly, browsers have gone about as far as they will ever go. Any significant content changes can be done through scripting and plugins.

    Why waste my time trying to convince me that skin change and some security patches are a major revision? Frankly, I think you’ll probably see a class action if MS ignores older OS versions (after all, if its part of the OS, people have paid for it and they have a reasonable expectation of a secure product, even if it IS after the fact)

    Its time to move onto the next software revolution that will make the web seem as outdated and antiquated as gopher. Who knows, the next tool might even have SECURITY built into it.

  102. Anonymous says:

    IE7 cannot and will not surpass Firefox unless the MSFT IE team can tell us more about it.

  103. Anonymous says:

    It’s pretty funny that for all the hype, and the supposed tens of thousands of daily testers, Mozilla have completely screwed up the upgrade process from 1.0 to 1.0.1.

    The installer doesn’t delete itself from the desktop. The automatic updates aren’t properly localized. Mac and Linux users initally got Windows binaries when they autoupdate! The auto updates didn’t start for a week after the release, leaving millions vulnerable to attack in the interim. If people manually installed a zipped nightly then they couldn’t manually install 1.0.1 using the .exe. If people installed a previous .exe then they couldn’t overinstall a .zip 1.0.1. It had problems failing gracefully if there weren’t sufficient privileges to install. ‘Firefox 1.0’ is still listed in the Add/Remove Programs. The ‘little red button’ on the menu bar is pathetic, and the popup warnings aren’t nearly sufficiently annoying.

    The Firefox daily testers are obviously fanboys instead of engineers. Further, they are the sort of manually tweak everything, not the average user to whom the update is shipped. They didn’t test the update mechanism, just the product. The lack of test quality shines through.

    Firefox has more features than IE, but the development process is obviously very immature. The fact is that only Microsoft have the scale to deploy software widely. Windows Update is a tested shipping mechanism. Part of the problem with market fragmentation is no universal upgrade mechanism.

    The strong leadership from Microsoft and Internet Explorer (dictatorial if necessary) helps keep things patched regardless of users, who don’t know anything about anything anyway. This is one great reason why the browser should be part of the operating system.

  104. Anonymous says:

    Chloe, I’ll give you the fact that Mozilla did **** up the switch Firefox 1.0.1, badly… They have apologized numerous times for the hasty and poorly planned migration. Rest assured, it isn’t going to happen again.

    But look at Microsoft’s handling of collateral damage… They have never apologized for Windows ME nor have the apologized for IE’s shortcomings.

  105. Anonymous says:

    I hope that IE7 will have some of the features of Firefox in it. IE with ActiveX enabled is pretty darned scary what with the climate of competitive web sites and markets is becoming. Sites are now installing crapola directly to your computer that spy on you and do other harmful things, simply because they can. Not to mention the obnoxious advertising and the inability of IE to do anything about it. The popup stopper that came with SP-2 was way overdue, no tabs in IE, no way to block obnoxious advertising or Flash in IE without crippling the browser and removing most of it’s functionality. It is almost like MS rolls out the red carpet for obnoxious ads and malicious scripts in IE.

    MS has a *long* way to go in order to catch up with Firefox, I sure hope that they are taking this seriously over there at the development team. I am a die hard MS fan and for me to switch default browsers like this is *unthinkable*! If any of you dev team over at MS can see this, I sure hope you take a moment to actually read this gripe because it is pretty serious and your browser base is actually eroding. You guys torpedoed Netscape and blew it out of the water, this was a good thing because IE was such a superior product, but I cannot say the same thing anymore. It is like you guys made it to the top and then just stopped trying or something.



    ~Ohmster

  106. Anonymous says:

    Does anybody know if IE7 have RSS built in?

  107. Anonymous says:

    I said: "But in order for the developers to listen to this opinion we must make it in a coherent, non-offensive, helpful manner."

    ‘Aargh’ replies: "Oh, come on. The developers know what’s bugging their customers, yet they keep awfully silent."

    So what’s your point then, ‘Aargh’?

    Surely if MS know about the grievances then we DON’T need to keep posting angry, faecetious messages requesting them (or reminding the IE team that FF or whatever browser has implemented them)

  108. Anonymous says:

    "So what’s your point then, ‘Aargh’?"

    My point is: If the IE dev. team keeps silent, people will keep posting those kinds of messages.

    It looks to me this blog is just a marketing tool, not a way to create a dialog with their users, like it should be.

  109. Anonymous says:

    "Aargh": "It looks to me this blog is just a marketing tool"

    So cynical.

    I have to ask – if you genuinely think this is a marketing tool then why are you posting comments on it?

    The rest of us might be suffering in the hands of the ‘evil, disinformative, FUD-brewing’ Microsoft marketing machine, but that doesn’t mean you have to. :-)

  110. Anonymous says:

    "we have heard the requests for support of Windows 2000 but have nothing to announce at this time."

    Then why bother and post something at all? This entire blog lacks substance. Everything we can read here is "Hang in there, we hear you, my name is blabla and we have nothing to announce"

    Great.

  111. Anonymous says:

    In war between IE X.Y and Firefox.

    For me, the main idea is : which browser can I use under :

    – MS Windows 98/2K/XP/ (Longhorn) ?

    – Linux ?

    – AIX ?

    – MacOS X (maybe 9 ?)

    – MS Windows CE ?

    – Palm?

    – Beos ?

    hummm, not lot of solution. And the main solution is not Firefox.

    For me it’s Gecko. As previous post said, it’s the HTML render engine.

    You can embed Gecko engine in firefox, mozilla, netscape, minimo (Mozilla for Windows CE), galeon, etc… and make funky stuff (tabbed browsing or not),etc…

    Hey IE guys, look at this : does IE7/HTML Render engine will be available for Windows CE and other platform ? And in IE7, maybe can we replace you engine with Gecko ? or another choice ? Made a true Model/View/Controller programs. Does Microsoft teach you this ?

    Maybe Gecko can teach you something…

    PS: i’m french so my english is not good..

  112. Anonymous says:

    It will take time for them to copy the functionality of Thunderbird. After all, Firefox arrived first, so IE 7 will copy those features first. Then they’ll have time to catch-up with OE.

  113. Anonymous says:

    Hahaha

    No Windows 2000 support in IE7

    Hahaha

    Microsoft support for their products

    Hahaha

  114. Anonymous says:

    If IE7 does not support CSS2 properly and I find it is awkward to create cross browser compatible sites I will not be coding for IE7.

    There is already enough hassle in using IE6 hacks and if they cannot be bothered to sort this out why should we be bothered to support it?

    JS redirects to better browsers will be the order of the day (next few years).

  115. Anonymous says:

    QUOTE: "To respond to Denny, the customers you have that are all Win2k, would they upgrade just the browser, but not the OS? What I’ve seen is that most customers will only do the browser when they are doing the client OS as well."

    Good point, I see most people complaining because we seemingly can’t upgrade one freebie to the newer freebie.

    MS are after all in business, if IE7 is only made for SP2 and beyond then play on.

    I myself have fallen in love with Firefox/Thunderbird but 99% of that reason was a security issue rammed down our throat by MS haters.

    QUOTE: "As far as supporting only XP SP2, I don’t see it as only a financial move. Yes, there are a lot of Win2k customers that Microsoft would like to upgrade. However, eventually MS has to move their platform forward. Look at Apple, those guys are absolutely awful about supporting old hardware and OS."

    LOL, and look at their market share 😉

  116. Anonymous says:

    Unless they update with Win2000 with SP5 or a rollup. It might have a chance to see IE 7 placed on that OS.

  117. Anonymous says:

    1)Microsoft IE Filters and Transitions – Awesome! Keep em!

    2)Tabbed Browsing – Over-rated – OK to have but NOT as default.

    3)PNG Transparency – Sure, but this is NOT the critical issue so many fanatics – especially OPERA fanatics make it out to be. OPERA fanatics should concern themselve with all the failures of that miserable browser including a stunning inabillity to render W3C validated HTML Tables properly.

    4) Fix the Favicon!

    5) CRITICAL: IGNORE the HTML META http-equiv Refresh tag when it it includes a RE-DIRECT URL

    6) PLEASE incorporate a "Developer Tool" menu item to check HTTP Headers. Please, Please. :)

    7) Don’t hire anyone from MSN-Search to work on IE – else you will have TWO disasters. Seriously.

    Thank You …

  118. Anonymous says:

    Get Firefox and Thunderbird. IE is outdated and has too many problems.

  119. Side effects from lipitor. Lipitor pricing. Can aspirin be taken with lipitor and metfromin. Lipitor.