Announcing IE7+


With the release of Windows Vista Beta 2, I want to announce that we will be naming the version of IE7 in Windows Vista “Internet Explorer 7+”. While all versions of IE7 are built from the same code base, there are some important differences in IE7+, most significantly the addition of Windows Vista-only features like Protected Mode, Parental Controls, and improved Network Diagnostics. These features take advantage of big changes in Windows Vista and weren’t practical to bring downlevel. The IE7+ naming gives us an easy way to refer to this version. (“The version of IE7 in Vista” doesn’t roll off the tongue as easily…)

These differences shouldn’t affect most web developers, but if you need to know specifically, you can refer to the OS field of the User-Agent string. As Eric noted previously, the User-Agent strings will have the info you need:

  • IE7+ running on Windows Vista: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0)
  • IE7 running on Windows XP: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1)

Beta 2 is available now for developers and IT professionals who subscribe to MSDN or TechNet, as well as members of the Technology Adoption Program (TAP) and the TechBeta program.  In the coming weeks, we’ll start the Windows Vista Customer Preview Program (CPP) for developers and IT professionals who aren’t part of one of those programs so they can get the code and begin their own testing.  We’ll open up the CPP to a broader group of technology enthusiasts who’ll get a build of the OS to begin testing the various consumer scenarios Windows Vista enables. 

The IE logo will also reflect this new naming.

Windows Internet Explorer 7+

There are no feature differences between IE7 and IE7+ beta 2 other than the ones I mentioned above; we have, however, fixed a bunch of bugs between the two releases. As always, I’d love to hear your feedback on this naming as well as the product. We’ll have more information on how to sign up for Windows Vista beta 2 with IE7+ shortly, but for now, you can download the IE7 beta here.

— Tony

Comments (233)

  1. Anonymous says:

    Why not IE7 Vista?

  2. Xepol says:

    IE 7.1 , VIE 7..

    7+ just doesn’t really do it for me…

  3. Anonymous says:

    Not bad, the short style.  Vaguely reminds me of another company’s rationale for a console’s name…

  4. Anonymous says:

    @Xepol

    Using 7.1 can be confusing, since it implies that it’s a newer version and that’s not the case.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Are you serious? This is nuts, you _will_ cause more confusion with this, than leaving it as IE7.

    I can’t wait to hear the tech support calls…

    Cust: "The page won’t work!"

    I.T.: "Which version of IE do you have?"

    Cust: "IE7"

    I.T.: "Is it IE7 or IE7 plus?"

    Cust: "what is IE7 plus? Is that with the extra pack for windows?"

    <bang-head repeat="true"/>

    You should leave it as is.  As you mentioned, it _IS_ IE7, on both OS’s.  Clarifying the OS, is all that is needed to differenciate.

    What version of IE are you running?

    IE7 on Vista?

    or

    IE7 on XP?

    Easy.

    KISS

  6. Anonymous says:

    I have a question guys. I recently downloaded IE7 and it is giving me a small bug on this site http://www.letsgotribe.com. The text on the comments page of the site now appears underlined. Do you guys know why it would do that or how I can fix it?

  7. LinWinOverlord says:

    Are you guys a little loopy? Did you eat too many donuts? Because it is a VERY BAD idea to introduce another name into IE7… Leave it as IE7 and you will not confuse customers! Remember! KISS!!!! You need to keep things simple, or you will wind up in a much worse position! Just sack this idea in "BAD IDEAS-DO NOT RESSURECT!!"

  8. Anonymous says:

    Another possible point of confusion:  People often use "+" to refer to "this version and later," as in "This website feature requires IE6+, Firefox 1+, or Opera 7+."

    So "IE7+" could refer to either "IE7 in Vista" or "IE7 and later," depending on context.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Of course folks will need to switch to ther shorthand to describe needing a greater browser than 6.  So it could be >IE, or IE 6 or >.  Of course there’s no stopping the marketing teams, they’ll figure out how to use that character, too, and then stylistic shorthand will be useless in describing versions.

  10. Anonymous says:

    BTW: maybe you could try dropping Mozilla from User-Agent string?

    IE/7.0 (Windows 6.0)

    Just add this as option for the brave – if that UA string starts popping-up in logs, developers will start taking note of it and eventually, maybe in 2020 you could finally use it as default 🙂

  11. Anonymous says:

    No one has a solution to my problem? Why does the text appear underlined? I thought it could be because I have underline links set to hover (even though it is text, not a link) but that did not fix anything when I set it to Never.

  12. Anonymous says:

    I was going to say that this was a ‘poor’ naming decision but after about, oh, 5 seconds of thought I decided not to mince words:  this is a STUPID decision, for the very reasons mentioned by other posters here.

    Let’s call a spade a spade: the "plus" is merely to give the illusion that one version of IE is better than another — thus another reason for users to upgrade to Vista (yay, marketing!) — when in fact the features that separate the two will likely not be used by 90% of the population.

    (I’d say 90%+ of the population, but I didn’t want to confuse anybody in the Sales team there, lest they think I’m referring to a completely different value)

  13. Anonymous says:

    I fear the next Operating System with an Internet Explorer will encourage your marketing creatives to use "IE10++" or "IE10!" if the IE Dev Team does not communicate that quallifiers like "IE5+" and "IE5.5+" already have a meaning in the wild.

  14. Dave Massy says:

    Joe,

    The underline problem you are seeing is probably due to the improved CSS support in IE7 which takes effect if the strict doctype is present on the web page. With the improvements in CSS some pages that were relying on CSS hacks to display in IE6 no longer render the same way. See http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/IETechCol/cols/dnexpie/ie7_css_compat.asp for details on these changes.

    Thanks

    -Dave

  15. Anonymous says:

    Joe,

    You might want to look into making sure your HTML and your CSS validate first before asking about bugs.  I checked it, and both of them had errors to fix.  The following urls are the results from one of your pages:

    http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?profile=css2&warning=2&uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.letsgotribe.com%2Fstory%2F2006%2F5%2F25%2F193344%2F739%23commenttop

    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.letsgotribe.com%2Fstory%2F2006%2F5%2F25%2F193344%2F739&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&ss=1&verbose=1

    Also, something you should consider is to try to switch from HTML 4.01 Transitional to Strict (or XHTML 1.0 strict or better.)  If you use Strict mode, the need for hacks will disappear, and pages will look the same in IE, Firefox, Opera, or Safari.  

  16. Anonymous says:

    Internet Explorer 7+

    I think is a good way of naming: short, simple and giving an idea that there’s more on this version

  17. Anonymous says:

    A bit offtopic, but this link basically says what I feel when developing for IE 6:

    http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,125772,pg,3,00.asp#ie6

    Of course, you can always say "download IE7", but at the compnay that I worked for (huge company in germany) have windows 2000 and IE 6, so I guess i am stuck with this softwar for years to come…

  18. Anonymous says:

    Since Protected Mode, Parental Controls, and improved Network Diagnostics etc. are Vista specific and not IE specific it should be just IE7 for Vista too.

    Volvo 454

    Volvo 454+ (same car but runs on autobahn too)

  19. Anonymous says:

    IE 7+? Seriously, you got to be kidding. It sounds ok though, for me I don’t think it’ll sound find. Why don’t rename it as IE 7V for vista and IE 7XP for windows XP. It will definitely differentiate well between the two versions. And not simply add a + there.

  20. Anonymous says:

    My 2 cents is for keeping the IE7 name.

  21. war59312 says:

    Yeah it is a pretty poor name. IE Vista would be better. The 7 is then not needed. 🙂 So IE 7 would always be on windows xp and IE Vista is of course only for Vista. Pretty darn simple.

  22. Anonymous says:

    "+" means to be better.

  23. Anonymous says:

    Very good. Congrats to IE Team.

  24. Anonymous says:

    I agree with Frak and Will.

    The name, not that important but IE Vista is better.

    Web standards support is the only way to go. Screw people who can’t write valid code.

  25. Anonymous says:

    The number is important, or we’ll be in a real mess when we release IE8.

    (Trust me, we’re all working hard to bring you great features, and adding the little + sign for the Vista Help | About box didn’t take any time away from that.  ðŸ˜‰

  26. Anonymous says:

    Just call it IE7 Beta 2.1 to avoid some silly misunderstandings 🙂

  27. Anonymous says:

    How about just naming the Vista version of IE7 "IE7 Vista"? Short and simple.

  28. Vasil Dinkov says:

    IE7+ is really a very bad name. As some noted, currently to most people this would mean "all versions of IE subsequent to IE7 and including IE7".

    Why not simply make it IE7 Vista? Or IE7 Vista Edition (like IE5 Macintosh Edition)?

    This way, when needed, everyone could simply refer to it as IE7/Vista (just like we refer to IE on Mac- IE5/Mac).

    We all know it is a marketing decision but believe me, IE7+ will surely bring a mass unneeded confusion. And you will also suffer from it.

  29. Anonymous says:

    In regards to the protected mode, it was announced back at PDC 2005 or Gnomedex that the stand-alone mode in Vista would benefit a "protected-mode", but not the ActiveX control mode.

    Care to tell us if anything has changed since then? There are numerous (like ten of thousands) ActiveX-based applications using IE out there…

    Does the lack of protected mode means those applications will automatically get a low security grade, thus prone to be blocked?

  30. Anonymous says:

    Aaargh! IE7+?

    Never noticed that the +-postfix means ‘and later’, like IE5+ means: ‘IE5 and later’.

    So when IE8 is out, what will ‘only IE7+’ mean? Does it work with IE8 or not?

    For most people, IT is confusing enough. Adding more confusion is a stupid decision.

  31. Anonymous says:

    I cant believe the dev team came up with the name IE7+…. It must have been some sales patter that has been taken out of the hands of the devs….

    Give me the name of the person who thought of this name, I want to slap him/her with a wet fish!!!!!!

    IE7 is IE7!! Protected mode etc is Vista specific. As another posted, just ask which OS; job done.

    Sort it out guys..

    PS I must say I think you are doing a grand job on the browser though!!

  32. Anonymous says:

    If you ask me there’s way too much shock and horror in these comments over a simple PLUS character. But I have to agree with some points – it could get confusing when referencing, say, "We support IE 6+". Some guy is bound to think "Well, I have IE 6, I know there’s IE 7+, no, wait, I’m confused, is there an IE 6+? Or does he mean OVER?" that sort of thing. OK, it’s common sense to us, but maybe not for the average joe.

    Maybe it would be better to go with a suggestion like "IE 7 Vista". Or, if that’s too long (which it is really, as it references the OS when all you really wanted to talk about was the browser), make it shorter. How? I don’t know. "7+" might just be the best that can be used here.

  33. Anonymous says:

    I think that Microsoft have to open their sources on IE for a great attack to Mozilla Firefox. Because programmers and users always increasing the code of the Mozilla’s Openware Software think and most of people have become to loved them.

    If MS open the sources of the IE and make IE use lower RAMS, MS can win this fight.

  34. Anonymous says:

    I think it’s way to confusing. it confusing in the way for example IE5+ is used. It may also be confused with Windows Plus.

  35. Anonymous says:

    To all the people bitching about the name, you really do need to get a life, it doesn’t really matter. So web-devs will have to stop being lazy and actually write "and later" instead of the + when describing browser versions. big freakin’ deal.

    To the devs – really enjoying IE7, look forward to getting vista to play with and enjoying IE7+.

  36. Anonymous says:

    It’s a bad name.

    And then?

    IE8 in XP & IE8+ in Vista?

    Or IE7 is the final and very last one for XP…

  37. Anonymous says:

    Can’t you say "IE7 in Vista" or is it too much difficult for your MS brains?

    IE7 in XP and IE7 in Vista!

    I can’t see any difficulty.

    Add "in Vista" under the Internet Explorer 7 logo.

  38. war59312 says:

    Yeah IE7 Vista then. 🙂 Then IE8 Vista, etc.

    I think that is the way to go. The whole + thing will just cause confusion for non technicail people, which as we all know are most Windows users.

    So what about IE7 Longhorn too? Or is Longhorn the same as IE7 Vista?

  39. Anonymous says:

    This is mind-blowingly silly.

  40. Anonymous says:

    Well, I really did think that this post was something on IE 8 because of the Plus mark and I was disappointed when it was only about a name change.

    This is me: "Yeah! IE 8 news!"

    Me after reading the post: "WTF? Oh, I suppose that makes some sense."

  41. Anonymous says:

    "Vista Edition" is by far the better tag, but it isn’t visual, multi-lingual, nor will it fit in a logo without truncation.

    With so many technical minded people at Microsoft I question the "collect feedback part" regarding the new name. I’m sure the marketing staff are well aware of any issues and just don’t care.

    I will be forced into using "7 and up", just like everyone else.

  42. Anonymous says:

    What about IE7.5 for Windows Vista Sounds alot better eh?

  43. Anonymous says:

    This is exactly the same thinking that gets you into trouble every single time.

    IE7+ means IE7 or better.

    IE7 Vista means.. eh….

  44. Xepol says:

    Ajo -> Vista IE meets ALL the requirements for a version rev number changes, so calling it 7.1 is valid.

    MS just doesn’t want to admit that the XP IE version is a stripped down version.  Rather than admitting that you using a browser basically left up on the blocks, the would rather you thought of it as the econo-model while the vista version was the Lincon Town Car.

    Not true, any more than the idea that a steering wheel is "optional" because it a standard option.

    All the new vista only features could be put into XP IE, and many would be fairly easy to do.  MS would prefer we ignored the fact by spinning the facts on this one, thus the lame "plus".

    I’m not biting, as many people have pointed out, it will cause confusion.  Refer to a 7.0 feature while helping someone and they might just not have it.  

    When future versions come out based on 7+ (the thought that MS would port 8.0 back to XP is laughable based on their track record of shoddy support for old OS versions when they want people to upgrade), are they going to continue to be plus versions?  No, they will be 8.0, 9.0, etc.

    It is doubtful, if there is a "7.1" rev of 7 that it will be ported to XP unless there are serious deficiencies (XP 7.0 will likely get security patches until XP’s support runs out), so we aren’t likely to see either a 7.1 or an 8.0 for XP.  

    Might as well call 7.0+ 7.1 instead and have clarity.

  45. Anonymous says:

    @Xepol

    I disagree 😉 lol…

  46. Anonymous says:

    This would be a bone-headed move as many have already pointed out. Just replace that + with a V (for Vista) and be done with it. IE7+ already means something, IE7V doesn’t.

  47. Anonymous says:

    I agree, the plus is needless. Why has the user interface suddenly turned into using non-native widgets, as opposed to the native Windows GUI ones?

  48. Anonymous says:

    I would love to see what everyone would have said if the name had been IE7 Vista-

    Joe:

    WHAT!? Why IE7 Vista?? Why not IE7+ !??? #$&*!

    Robert:

    I agree with Joe! What’s with the Vista? Why not just use a simple + symbol!?

    Yeah guys, I’m a programmer, and I know it may cause confusion. But I don’t think it will cause death and mass destruction; let it go, please. For my sake. Or the sake of bandwidth. Or someone’s sake you care for. 😛

  49. Anonymous says:

    i dunno … IE7+ sounds good enough to me … but i cant believe how many people are bitching about the name … IT’S JUST A NAME!

    some say that the "+" means "better" .. well, it is tho … it has more features than the XP version, so of course its better (feature-wise.. not security or w/e .. those sorta things will be known when the actual final IE7+ is out).

    even if the xp version is a stripped down one, it doesnt matter.. it wud still mean that IE7+ is "better" … hence the "+" is reasonable.

    the only "valid" reason for confusion i see is when you read the reqruiements that say: "IE6+" (meaning 6 or later) … but that’s just silly because ppl can just say "IE7 or later" instead of "IE7+" … surely the name of a software is what is used most frequently, not the requirements …

    what im saying is … we wud say/use the title of the program ("IE Seven Plus") more often than reading a software requirements … so it’s more important to me to make the title of the browser short and simple, and let the documentations/readme’s get longer.

    another thing i want to add/ask (and im not an expert so it wud be great if someone can enlighten me) … is there a difference in the way IE7+ handles websites and web contents compared to IE7?

    what im trying to say is … what sorta reason wud a "thing" (be it a webpage or whatever) require only the + version? …

    Parental Control and Protected Mode and Netword Diagonsis are the main differenced mentioned in the blog … all those features sound (and i may be wrong, like i said im no expert) like features independent from the actual webpage or content u’re viewing … just like a pop-up blocker for example: it doesnt matter what website u go to (old websites, new websites), it still blocks the popups.

    if for any reason a software or w/e requires IE7+ and not IE7 (or later), then wudnt it say that it requires Windows Vista to start with? Saying that it requires Windows XP wud automatically indicate that IE7 wud work and the + (if used in the requirements) means "later" rather than "the vista version"

    anyway … do wutever u want with the name .. its ur software anyway … but at least make it alot more secure and bug-free 🙂

  50. Anonymous says:

    Lets fix the useragent accordingly please…

    This…

    "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Q312461; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)"

    Should be this…

    MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; (Q312461; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)"

    There is no such browser as "Mozilla". Beta names do not count as browser names either.

    Let’s also see the + added to the 7.0 in the useragent so it will be easy to differentiate between what versions of IE7 have what share on the market please.

  51. Anonymous says:

    oops … looks like im not the only joe here … shudve picked a better name lol (my bad)

  52. Anonymous says:

    Vista に乗る IE7 は、&quot;IE 7+&quot;という名前になると発表したところ、「IE7 Vistaでいいんじゃないの?」という意見が殺到しているみたいです。

  53. Anonymous says:

    From the IEBlog: With the release of Windows Vista Beta 2, I want to announce that we will be naming the version of IE7 in Windows Vista &quot;Internet Explorer 7+&quot;. While all versions of IE7 are built from the same…

  54. Anonymous says:

    Ugh… ANOTHER INSTANCE OF WHERE MICROSOFT DOESN’T ASK THE USERS OR DEVS BEFORE THEY FINALIZE SOMETHING.

    Could you at least have given us a heads-up before you did something like this.

    Eric and the other members of the IE Team are not going listen to us regarding this horrid decision.

    I leave this blog for one week and look at what happens.

  55. Anonymous says:

    I think because IE5+ or IE6+ has already been used in the literature as "IE5 or above and IE6 or above" there will be quite a bit of confusion in using IE7+ for a specific version of IE and not for "IE7 or above". Then how should we say "IE7+ or above"? Do we say IE7++?!! Think about it. If I were to suggest a name I would say "IE7" or "IE7 Vista".

  56. Anonymous says:

    IE 7+? It is just a name anyway. To avoid confusion and dissatisfactions, I recommend IE Team or Microsoft to change the name.

  57. Anonymous says:

    @Xepol: "All the new vista only features could be put into XP IE, and many would be fairly easy to do."

    Untrue.  

    The NDF (Network Diagnostics Framework) is a Vista platform feature and it requires changes in every component all the way down the network layers below Winsock to work correctly.  Since IE doesn’t ship anything below WinINET, this component can’t be ported downlevel.

    Parental Controls is built on the Windows Vista Parental controls architecture.  None of this platform code exists in XP and we don’t ship any of the components that it relies on, so this can’t be ported either.

    With a huge investment, both of these ~could~ in theory be ported downlevel, but this would require IE shipping major updates across the OS.

    As for Protected Mode, there’s simply no way that this could go downlevel.  Protected Mode relies on features all the way down to the kernel level, and there’s no way to get those into XP without shipping Windows Vista.  (Believe me, folks have tried to pull this off, and it simply doesn’t work).

    @John: In my user-agent blog, I explained why we don’t remove the Mozilla.  If you want to surf without it, write a rule in Fiddler.  You’ll find that a huge percentage of the Internet simply doesn’t work.  To paraphrase the conclusion one reader reached after reading the flames: "I can’t believe so many people get so upset about a string that no normal users ever see!"

    @Fiery: I’m listening right now, and a lot of the concerns certainly make sense.  

    That being said, I think time will show that the concerns about confusion here will prove to be overblown.  

  58. PatriotB says:

    Xepol said: "All the new vista only features could be put into XP IE, and many would be fairly easy to do."

    Do you even know what Protected Mode is?  Or how it’s implemented?  It’s based on some big changes introduced in the NT security model in Vista… read up on "mandatory integrity level" in the Windows SDK.  Would you propose that the IE team somehow try to back-port all the NT security architecure changes to XP?

  59. PatriotB says:

    LOL, looks like EricLaw beat me to it by a few minutes…

  60. Anonymous says:

    IE7 name change: MS staffer says it will be called &quot;IE7+&quot;, or &quot;Internet Explorer 7+&quot;. I guess they want us to refer to it in conversation like this: &quot;Tested in &gt;=IE7+&quot;. No idea if next version will be called &quot;IE7++&quot;.

  61. Anonymous says:

    I agree with Kelson and Will. 7+ implies version 7 and/or better, and you could just as well call it IE for Vista.

    Didn’t you do something similar with Windows Media Player for Windows XP, even though it was version 8?

  62. Anonymous says:

    What’s the point of asking us for feedback if you won’t change the name?

    eh?

    I will still call IE7 for Vista exactly what it is, and IE7 for XP the same thing.

    [if gt ie7]

    <p>You are using IE7+</p>

    [/endif]

  63. Anonymous says:

    The way I see it is rather simple…

    Microsoft is giving XP users the guilt-trip…

    "By not using Internet Explorer 7+ (god I hate that name), here’s what you’re missing out on!"

    PLEASE BE SUBTLE ABOUT IT! There is no need for the rudeness of a "plus" version.

    I’m sure we all understand the technological limitations of IE7 for XP (although I do question why the Vista-only features were applied at the kernel-level architecture).

    Why must the IE Team make us feel bad for being XP users? Don’t we get enough grief every 2 oe 3 years when Bill Gates tells us that we should dump our inferior OSes for newer ones?.

    Why cut corners? Why do these features have to be reliant on the Vista code-base? Aren’t you guys making a single effort to isolate Internet Explorer from the OS?

    The Trident engine for the OS should be SEPARATE from the Trident engine for the browser, only OS releases and service packs should update the OS engine.

  64. Anonymous says:

    Internet Explorer 7v

    Internet Explorer 7.v

    Internet Explorer 7 Vista

    Vista Internet Explorer 7

    7+ is like 7up. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

  65. Anonymous says:

    (I do feel bad for the Cadbury-Schweppes bottling company)

    Besides, the additions certainly do not warrant a "plus".

    Add some more CSS and XHTML support and then we can talk…

  66. Anonymous says:

    IE7xp

    IE7v

  67. Anonymous says:

    Whats wrong with just IE7V ?

    Does the job and makes to simple too 🙂

  68. ricochet says:

    will there be a single download for IE7 / IE7+?

    If it’s just the same binary/program then it doesn’t make sense to have a split based on the name.

    If they are different binaries (then as you mentioned – the extra functionalities come from the OS) what will happen if I install IE7 (not IE7+) on Vista?

  69. Anonymous says:

    so, we’ll see microsoft in the court about trust issues again. huh?

  70. Anonymous says:

    Just call it IE7 …

    There are many products whose features differ, depending on the OS version.

    To me "IE7+" means "Internet Explorer 7 and newer".

    Two thumbs down for this one.

    btw, what’s with those silly PingBacks? Looks like you’re just advertising your own blogs. Stop it, please.

  71. Anonymous says:

    To all the comment posters, you clearly have a lack of understanding!!!

    When stating compatibility like "Firefox 1.5 or newer, Internet Explorer 7 or newer" then it doesn’t matter if it is really "Firefox 1.5.2" or "Internet Explorer 7.02" or "IE 7+".  It is all the same.

    For developers: code for IE7 compatibility, and both "IE7 for WinXP" and "IE7+ for Vista" browsers will support it.

    For tech support: "What OS?" XP/Vista, "What Browser?" 7/7+  (same difference as Firefoxers saying "Deer Park").

    Jeez!

  72. Ara says:

    I have one issue with IE7.2 that is driving me insane.  At least 10 times a day, it *stops* being my default browers and I have to go into it again and selecte "Make IE7 my default browser".  This is making me nuts!!  Any ideas on what to do?  This usually happens when I’m answering mail in OE and clicking on a link to reply in Live Journal.  Links in e-mail do the same thing.

    Thanks in advance for any help you can give me.

  73. Anonymous says:

    "For tech support: "What OS?" XP/Vista, "What Browser?" 7/7+  (same difference as Firefoxers saying "Deer Park")."

    This is pure ignorance…

    Deer Park was the name of the ALPHA builds for Firefox 1.0

  74. Anonymous says:

    Let’s recap the IE marketing logic so far.

    Abandon all other platform.

    Drop legacy versions of windows

    Lock the UI into a frankenstein layout

    Don’t tell anyone what was fixed, let them guess.

    Promise standards support(just don’t say which)

    Change naming schemes like a stoplight.

    Keep em waiting a few years.

    Oh yeah.  I can’t wait for the IE 7 thingy.  That firefox fling is so over.

  75. Anonymous says:

    "This is pure ignorance… Deer Park was the name of the ALPHA builds for Firefox 1.0"

    First, "Deer Park" is the codename for the current Firefox 1.5 milestone build cycle.

    Second, you’ve reinforced my point.  IE’ers are discussing semantics, while die-hard FF’ers seek more in a product version’s labeling (internal, or otherwise).

    As I stated: build for IE7, and both OS’es will be supported.  NO biggie, not worth wasting a breath over.

  76. PatriotB says:

    "will there be a single download for IE7 / IE7+?

    If it’s just the same binary/program then it doesn’t make sense to have a split based on the name.

    If they are different binaries (then as you mentioned – the extra functionalities come from the OS) what will happen if I install IE7 (not IE7+) on Vista?"

    IE7 (or should I now say, "IE7+", will already be installed on Vista.  You cannot download it separately; only plain IE7 can be downloaded separately.  Likewise, I’m sure it won’t let you manually install plain IE7 on Vista.

    "(although I do question why the Vista-only features were applied at the kernel-level architecture)"

    Read Eric’s comment again.  "Protected Mode relies on features *all the way down to* the kernel level" (emphasis mine).  The security changes are all throughout Vista, not just in the kernel.  Certainly such a huge change as the mandatory integrity level is going to require kernel level changes as well.

    "Aren’t you guys making a single effort to isolate Internet Explorer from the OS?"

    Actually, IE has been isolated quite a bit–read some of my comments on other blog posts about the removal of IE/Shell integration.

    "The Trident engine for the OS should be SEPARATE from the Trident engine for the browser, only OS releases and service packs should update the OS engine."

    I’m not sure what this comment has to do with anything.  What are you suggesting, that there be two MSHTML.DLL’s out there, one that is used exclusively by IEXPLORE.EXE and one that is used by everything else (Help, 3rd party apps)?  How would that be beneficial?

  77. Anonymous says:

    So those bugs fixed are another feature of IE7 and IE7 XP users won’t have it?

    blehhh….just joking,i hope

    bugs are also fixed in IE7 for XP users:)?

  78. Anonymous says:

    I use safari and firefox, why IE?! 😛

  79. war59312 says:

    Um yeah what are the other bugs that are fixed in IE Vista?

  80. straight_up says:

    I don’t want to look like just another MS-hating loser, but someone brought up the **very good** point that the "+" sign is used to indicate "or later versions."

    Other than that, it makes sense… ignore the people trying to say that "for Vista" is somehow implicitly better.

    That said, "IE 7 Vista edition" or something to that effect would be a lot more clear, simply because in the real world, + is used to mean "or later."

    I’ll stop rambling.

    Good luck with your upcoming releases.

  81. Anonymous says:

    IE7+ の発表

  82. Anonymous says:

    Some techies may confuse IE7+ with "IE 7 and later", but average users aren’t likely to be confused by that. It’s a convention that Web developers, designers, and expert users are accustomed to, but I doubt that the shorthand has any meaning for the average user.

    The meaning of IE7+ for the average Windows users will be based on Microsoft’s marketing, but IE7+ immediately conveys the idea that IE7+ is "better" than IE7. IE7 for Windows Vista doesn’t do that. Given that, IE7+ is a good name.

  83. war59312 says:

    No Michelle given that, IE7+ is a bad name. Read some of the comments above. You will see that IE 7 and IE7+ have the same function sets and therefore IE7+ is not better than IE7. The other "new" functions are not for IE itself but in Windows as a few MS employees have so kindly pointed out. Such as Protected Mode…

    Thefore, IE7+ is a bad name since it implies that it is better than IE7 when in fact it is not. The other features again are from the OS, Vista in this case. So again that’s why it should be IE7 XP and IE7 Vista.

  84. Anonymous says:

    IE7 B2:

    there are no different Enable & Disable tab selection "Always switch to new tabs when they are created".

    tabs are always be active title bar unless press "Ctrl" when click hyperlink.

  85. Anonymous says:

    Interesting; 103 comments (now 104) just about a little thing as a "+" – damn, I’m glad we don’t have other problems on earth.

    One thing that is really annoying me with IE7B2: on every second homepage flash-player is not being recognized as being install. Now, I could keep on installing it several hundred time but that won’t change anything.

    Any solution from MS yet? It’s really annoying!

  86. Anonymous says:

    So, get ready for:

    "Windows Media Player 11+"

    and

    "Windows Live Messenger 8+"  

    :-p

    Doh!

  87. Fduch says:

    bla bla bla… And where is this 5384.4 build for XP? You don’t want to show customers that all major bugs are not fixed? You’re so calm that it seems to me that you use opera.

  88. Anonymous says:

    A Microsoft anunciou uma nova vers&#227;o do IE7, chamada IE7+. Essa &#233; a vers&#227;o do&amp;nbsp;Internet Explorer&amp;nbsp;que…

  89. Anonymous says:

    Okay, everybody except Eduardo Valencia and "Will" were repeating each other, so in short: I agree with most others that IE7+ is a bad name for above mentioned reasons, but I really don’t care.

    What’s more important: "There are no feature differences between IE7 and IE7+ beta 2 […]; we have, however, fixed a bunch of bugs between the two releases."

    Does that mean IE7-beta-2-on-Windows-XP and IE7+-beta-2-on-Windows-Vista behave different when it comes to certain bugs? How am I supposed to develop for this? Run four computers to test on IE 5.5, IE 6.0, IE 7, and IE 7+? It’s bad enough there’s no official developer option to run two parallel IE versions for testing purposes, except for a bunch of hacks. But am I supposed to develop for a buggy Windows XP IE7 and a less buggy Windows Vista version?!?

    Anything other than IE7 and IE7+ (or whatever you call it) behaving identical on the two operating systems is totally inacceptable, as long as web techniques like CSS are concerned. What you do with parental control I don’t care.

  90. Anonymous says:

    For the people who think possible confusion about the meaning of "IE7+" is not a big deal — I respectfully disagree. The ambiguity of the name will cause friction in IT groups trying to deal with the changes. There is a huge population of IT workers who don’t pay that much attention to Microsoft, much less instantly recognize whatever the latest distinction is.

    I can see now that for the next 5 or so years, I’m going to have to constantly explain whether IE7+ in any given instance refers to "IE 7 on Vista" or "IE 7 or higher".

    I’ve already put this URL and the description in an AutoText entry so I don’t have to type it over and over again. Sigh.

    Ambiguity in technical terms is bad and should be avoided wherever possible.

    Sigh, again. The world will go on, but with just a bit more friction in it.

  91. Anonymous says:

    For the people who think possible confusion about the meaning of "IE7+" is not a big deal — I respectfully disagree. The ambiguity of the name will cause friction in IT groups trying to deal with the changes. There is a huge population of IT workers who don’t pay that much attention to Microsoft, much less instantly recognize whatever the latest distinction is.

    I can see now that for the next 5 or so years, I’m going to have to constantly explain whether IE7+ in any given instance refers to "IE 7 on Vista" or "IE 7 or higher".

    I’ve already put this URL and the description in an AutoText entry so I don’t have to type it over and over again. Sigh.

    Ambiguity in technical terms is bad and should be avoided wherever possible.

    Sigh, again. The world will go on, but with just a bit more friction in it.

  92. Anonymous says:

    Marin Kliehm – re bug differences, I interpreted that to mean that previous beta releases of IE7 had bugs which are now fixed in the beta 2 release of IE7+ and will also be fixed in the next beta release of IE7. I expect that when IE7 and IE7+ are released they will be bug-for-bug compatible and the only differences will be that "+" features exist in IE7 on Vista and do not exist in IE7 on XP.

    At least I hope so….

  93. Anonymous says:

    So does this mean that IE6 with the XP SP2 enhancements will now be referred to as IE6+? I don’t see the problem. Whenever someone asks me for help with IE6 I simply say "Are you running it under Windows XP with Service Pack 2?" then depending on their answer, I go from there. Why can’t your support guys be trained to say "Are you running IE7 under Windows Vista?" I don’t see what’s so difficult about that. As others have pointed out, it breaks the standard "Requires IE6+" convention, it adds confusion since MS has not used this naming convention in the past (as I pointed out with IE6 SP2), it’s just a bad idea all around.

    It doesn’t even solve the problem you’re trying to address. At some point there will likely be an IE7 SP1. This may or may not add new features. Hence, you’re in the exact same boat of differentiation. Users will need to know to say "I have SP1." Or do you intend to add some other symbol? IE7 SP1 on XP is "IE7*" and on Vista is "IE7+*" it really doesn’t help to solve anything. Just in the Help -> About Internet Explorer include a little line that shows the OS info and when someone asks for support, ask them to include that info as well as the IE version. Problem solved, no added confusion, no new problems.

  94. Typhoon87 says:

    Ie 7 for vista is much nicer.

    I know they talked about this before the user agent string, why does it still say mozilla 4 yea that was how many years ago???

  95. Anonymous says:

    The naming would be better as the following:

    Windows XP: IE 7

    Windows Vista: IE 7.5

    Windows Vista SP1 or later: IE 8

    Wouldn’t be a problem as long as there isn’t an IE 8 for XP.

  96. Anonymous says:

    I’d just like to say that I am using regular IE7 and it works like a charm. I love the tabs and the way the phishing filter works. Thanks guys!

  97. Fduch says:

    to Tom Stack

    spell S  E  A  R  C  H     T  H  I  S    P  a  G  E

  98. Anonymous says:

    @iName

    The differences between the Vista and XP versions in no way warrant even a 7.1/7.0 namng convention, let along 7.5.

  99. Anonymous says:

    There is one thing which worries me slightly, due to the bug fixes: is it possible to target IE7 XP only, or Vista only, with conditional comments?

  100. Anonymous says:

    …unless, of course, the bugfixes are *only* non-rendering?

  101. Escamillo says:

    *yawn*

    Who cares?  I don’t care either way about the "IE7+" name.

  102. Anonymous says:

    stupid

  103. Anonymous says:

    silly.  just plain silly.  please fire the people in charge of naming this product.

  104. Anonymous says:

    I think IE Vista edition sounds better and more logical to the  end user

  105. Anonymous says:

    IE7….

    Another Microsoft CR (customer relationship) campaign, huh?

    All end-users are now becoming   genie-pigs!!

    Why?

    Why Microsoft cannot give us a trouble-free software?

    Shame on you.

  106. damien says:

    "IE 7 Vista" would be a much better less confusing name…. and it is a more explicit way to promote Windows Vista at the same time.

  107. Anonymous says:

    I agree.  IE7 without the +.  + as you know by now means current version + all higher versions.  If you use ‘plus’, as you have in the past, it may eliminate the confusion.

    Use:

    IE7 plus

  108. PatriotB says:

    Allan Rasmussen, re: the "bug fixes": I’d say that Dufusdan was right in his interpretation of the sentence "we have, however, fixed a bunch of bugs between the two releases."  The "releases" that that sentence is referring to, is the releases of IE7Beta2 for XP, and the IE7+ that is part of Vista Beta2.  It’s not referring to the final versions; it is referring to the fact that the IE team has fixed bugs between the time that IE7Beta2XP was released, and last week when Vista Beta2 was released.

    Since the two versions are built out of the same code base, when the final versions of each are produced, the same bug fixes will be in both.  There will be no rendering differences and no need to target one version over another.

  109. Anonymous says:

    I agree: IE7+ is a stupid, confusing name. Go for IE7 Vista instead.

  110. Anonymous says:

    @PatriotB: Ah, missed that comment, just browsed them quickly and did a search for CCs. Thanks for repeating it. I hope you’re right…

  111. Anonymous says:

    When I enter my member centre on plusnet and try to access the varies pages all I see are blank pages only the help section opens but then does not go anywhere into member only pages

    My ISP says uninstall IE7+ I have done that and it goes back to normal access

    I also find it a pain trying to locate the organize sector for my favorites

    Help

  112. Anonymous says:

    Microsoft va a lanzar distintas versiones de IE7 para XP y Vista. La versi&#243;n para Vista (llamada Internet Explorer 7+) ser&#225; igual que la de XP pero con ciertos a&#241;adidos, como por ejemplo un modo protegido, control paterno y un…

  113. Anonymous says:

    To show a difference between the new version of Internet Explorer for XP and the one for Vista, the latter…

  114. Anonymous says:

    Well just after installing vista links from programs or emails which should launch IE is not working.  I get a dialog box telling me that "Internet Explorer has Stopped working. A problem caused the program to stop working correctly.  Windows will close the program and notify you if a solution is available".  If I click on the shortcut or try to launch IE I get the same Error.  Now here is where it gets wired.  First let me tell you I am an administrator of the pc.  If I right click and select run as administrator it opens IE and works fine.

    Am I missing something simple?

    Ryan

  115. Anonymous says:

    to state that there will be no ‘operational’ differences between ie7 and ie7+ is foolhardy to say the least.

    you’d expect no differences between ie6 on win2000 and XP, but they are there…

    …lets wait for ie7+ on XP and ie7++ on Vista – then see who’s confused!

  116. Anonymous says:

    Announcing IE7+ – Microsoft has named the version of Internet Explorer 7 (IE7) in Windows Vista &quot;Internet Explorer 7+&quot; (IE7+) in tandem with the release of Windows Vista Beta 2. IE7+ is built on the same code base as IE7 but also includes Protected

  117. Anonymous says:

    I’m sorry, but I have to agree with the others in that this doesn’t sound like a very good solution. No, "Vista for IE7" doesn’t roll of the tongue as easily, but the important thing here is to be clear about what we’re talking about, right? Not what’s most easily said in words?

    The most important aspect of why this may be bad to me is that IE 7+ would normally mean "IE 7 and later". This notation is used *everywhere* on the web already.

    A "+" isn’t part of a normal product branding style, and will likely confuse enough to the ease of saying it won’t be worth it too much.

    I don’t quite understand what the problem with saying "IE7 for Vista" is? Obviously, MS have no problems naming products like "Visual Studio 2005 Team Suite Edition" anyway. Granted, this is limited to the IT professional segment only, but home users had no problems with e.g "Windows XP Home". That’s of comparative "complexity".

    The difference here is that "Home" tells it’s for home use, "+" doesn’t tell a thing.

  118. Anonymous says:

    Just another case of MS being retarded. Nothing to see here. Move along.

  119. PatriotB says:

    There is *one* problem with calling it IE7 for Vista or IE7 Vista: it will be included with Longhorn Server as well which won’t be branded Vista.  So maybe something like IE7v would work.

  120. Anonymous says:

    Great interface~ IE7 Rocks!

  121. Anonymous says:

    It needs completely different improvements than Protected Mode or Parent Control (a virus will once be able to hijack IE to such a mode and bye-bye browser:)). It rather needs TOTAL USER CONTROL over IE.

  122. Anonymous says:

    I agree with everyone else here: The plus will only confuse matters further down the line. Most people will think it has something extra in it that the normal doesn’t have. In a few years when IE8 comes out then everyone with IE7+ will assume they either already have the browser. Or that any page who "works in IE8" will automatically work for them as their browser will cope with it.

    The fact (as pointed out previously) that the plus version has extra code in it for stuff that runs on vista only means that we web developers need another another virtual/physical machine to test our code. We’ve been getting used to this for years, but it is going to be really annoying.

  123. Anonymous says:

    Why not just call it IE 7, forget about which version people are using. The users won’t care, and certainly won’t know. To them it will just be Internet Explorer, they won’t even use the number 7.

    Just keep the a distinction between the two versions for programmers/web developers. Send it in Crash reports etc.,

  124. Anonymous says:

    "The fact (as pointed out previously) that the plus version has extra code in it for stuff that runs on vista only means that we web developers need another another virtual/physical machine to test our code. We’ve been getting used to this for years, but it is going to be really annoying."

    This is the whole point – the Vista version does contain additional ‘Vista only’ functionality, but its nothing to do with the rendering (so you won’t need to run this on a VM). IE7 and IE7+ are *IDENTICAL* in terms of rendering engine.

    This is why the ‘+’ is being used… it is for minor, under the hood stuff – not rendering issues (which would warrant a x.x diffrentiation).

  125. Anonymous says:

    Quit your bitchin people!  I think IE7+ is a fine name…  

    Remember back in Win98 days when MS offered the Plus pack?  This is the same principle…

    You get the IE7 Browser PLUS some nice extras.

    IE7 and IE7+ Rock !!!

  126. Anonymous says:

    "Windows as a few MS employees have so kindly pointed out. Such as Protected Mode… "

    No, he said that Protected Mode is *based* on Windows Vista technologies.  Nothing else in Vista runs in protected mode.

    "a virus will once be able to hijack IE"

    The point is that the virus won’t be able to run in the first place.  It can’t break out of protected mode.

    ALL: Has it occurred to you that no one outside of Microsoft’s marketing department will ever call it IE7+?  Has it ever been referred to as IE7+ on the blog before?  Does the + appear anywhere in the User-Agent or in the desktop shortcuts or title bar?

    This post is announcing a meaningless + sign that only appears in the Help dialog.

  127. Anonymous says:

    to: http://www.umpcstyle.com

    The plus pack? You mean that over priced rubbish that I’ve never seen anyone own, buy or use?

    The only people who will care about whether thet are using IE7 or IE7 plus are self-named "Power Users", and they’ll be using Windows Vista anyway. To nearly everyone else on this planet that uses a computer and isn’t a geek, IE7 will be just "the picture I click on to browse the web. They aren’t going to give two hoots about the name or the "benefits" of IE7+

  128. Anonymous says:

    Totally Agree, IE7+ as a name is a bad idea.

    IE7 Vista Edition

    IE7 XP

    sounds very simple and straightforward, unless you can run IE7 and IE7+ on Vista at the same time

  129. Anonymous says:

    it was sucks & still more sucks… :-

  130. Anonymous says:

    it was… & still more7+ …. 🙂

  131. Anonymous says:

    Tony,

    When you said "we have fixed a bunch of bugs"–that can be interpreted as including under-the-hood CSS/DOM bug fixes, although it’s not clear you meant it that way.

    Would you please clarify? Will CSS/DOM support will be exactly the same in IE 7 and IE 7+? Thanks

  132. So… if I understand this right…

    IE7+ refers to:

    IE7/Vista

    IE7/Longhorn Server

    IE7 refers to:

    IE7/XP

    IE7/Windows 2003 Server

    ?

  133. Anonymous says:

    "Another possible point of confusion:  People often use "+" to refer to "this version and later," as in "This website feature requires IE6+, Firefox 1+, or Opera 7+."

    So "IE7+" could refer to either "IE7 in Vista" or "IE7 and later," depending on context."

    – Kelson

    I agree with this 100%.  That’s the first thing I thought of when I saw the name.  I don’t have a problem with IE7 having a different name for Vista.  But please, think of something less confusing than IE7+, even if it is longer.  "IE7 Vista" would be fine.  Or "IE7 Cool", or "IE7c" ("c" for crunk).  Use your imaginations. =)

    With respect,

    Steve

  134. Anonymous says:

    This is insane. Call it IE7 and be done with it.

  135. Anonymous says:

    What moronic idea. I’d like to know who gave the approval to that, and what the thought process was. Hopefully this can be steered back in the right direction.  

    IE7+ will ALWAYS mean "compatible with Internet Explorer 7 and later versions".  Or is that what IE7++ should mean?

  136. Anonymous says:

    Well… if it doesn’t work I don’t care how it’s called.

  137. Anonymous says:

    This is kinda like naming the product, "IE7?"

    chat dialog:

    IT guy: "Is it IE7 or IE7?"

    customer: "Umm… yes."

    IT guy: "No, is it IE7 or IE7 ‘question mark’"

    customer: "I’m not following you."

  138. Anonymous says:

    Isn’t the fact that the "+" MIGHT be confusing enough to reconsider calling it something else? I think naming it by the operating system is the way to go. The average computer user could care less about latest version updates and nice sounding names, so just go with what will be the most user-friendly. Did I really just post on this?    

  139. Anonymous says:

    Use Firefox instead.

  140. Anonymous says:

    @John: "Will CSS/DOM support will be exactly the same in IE 7 and IE 7+?"

    Yes.

  141. Anonymous says:

    Feed these new names to marketing…

    IE7 XP = PIX7E (Pixie)

    IE7/Vista = V7SE-Tea (Vice-Tea)

  142. Anonymous says:

    The authors of IE suspect that there will be no more versions beyond 7.0, and thus notation "IE 7+" will not cause confusion.

  143. Anonymous says:

    rch wrote:

    "The authors of IE suspect that there will be no more versions beyond 7.0"

    That’s wwhat they said about 6.0

  144. Anonymous says:

    A good idea in general methinks.

    Although I have to admit when I read the title and hadn’t yet started reading the main post, I had already assumed that this was somehow referring to future (ie. post-7.0) versions of IE…

    It is a valid point that support people (or whoever) could just as easily ask "What version of IE" and then "What OS?" although you’d be surprised how many people don’t know what an operating system is, not least what version they’re running.

    I asked someone once what version of windows they were running.

    "Er, Windows 97 I think…" was the response 😉

    So yeah, nice one, IE7+ is quite a good idea.

  145. Anonymous says:

    quote:

    ———–

    rch wrote:

    "The authors of IE suspect that there will be no more versions beyond 7.0"

    That’s wwhat they said about 6.0

    ———–

    Eh?? Or is that just the "official" line that’s being taken? I heard from a very believable source about some plans for IE8…

    … and to be honest I think it’s to be expected. I don’t think any company could ever credibly state that they’re never going to have to release another version of a product. It’s just senseless – to think that the world is never going to develop any more.

    Like with cars, they’re always finding bits that aren’t as safe as they could be, and improving them. It is the ultimate in arrogance to say "this is perfect, we’ll never need to release a new one…"

  146. Anonymous says:

    IMO, there’s nothing wrong with adding a + to the Vista version of IE7. I don’t think it will confuse customers, as it indicates there’s something more to the Vista version of IE7–and there is. If you need to know which version of IE7 they are using just ask them if they’re using Vista. How hard is that? Furthermore, if a customer doesn’t know whether or not they’re using Vista they probably won’t know which version of IE they are using either.

  147. Anonymous says:

    It’s going to be hard to search for, like "C#" turned out to be.

    It’s "just a designation," but the designation already meant something else.

    Yeah, "this website supports Netscape 1.7+ and Internet Explorer 7+ and higher" looks a little goofy, but there’s already a new logo, so what can you do.

  148. Anonymous says:

    Community: IE7+!  That plus will send us into a disaster of biblical proportions!

    Microsoft: What do you mean, "biblical"?

    Community: Old Testament, Microsoft, real wrath-of-God type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling. Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes… The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together–mass hysteria!

    Or not.

    But I still say to drop Mozilla/4.0 from the UA string, or do something similar to what someone said:

    MSIE 7.0 (Windows NT 6.0; Mozilla/4.0 compatible)

    I mean, even Opera has quit spoofing you guys now.

  149. Anonymous says:

    I dont see the big deal about the name of it. The plus, to me, just means here’s a few extras that’ve been added. Though I dont see why they couldnt call it IE8 then go when Vista becomes available go up again. Almost everyone I know loves a new update and they dont know a lot about computing. Keep changing the number on the end and folks’ll think they’re getting the scoop before their friends!

  150. Anonymous says:

    Still surprisingly bad support of CSS even if it is IE7 pluss or double pluss. My boss went nuts the other day when I explained her how to hack and mangage to get tihings right in IE because of bad support of standards (TV company)

    Time and money we could used on design and content – or cool backend.

    IE8 with full CSS support please….

  151. Anonymous says:

    + = more or better = bad idea

    error #5447ggvree68789  

    tech support>>> duaa…

    was this answer helpfull

  152. Anonymous says:

    Hi,

    On the one hand the name "IE 7+" is really short, but on the other hand I think something like "IE 7 Vista Edition" or "IE 7 XP Edition" sounds better.

    bye,

    Peter

  153. Anonymous says:

    See how quickly you can find this thread by searching. Search for "IE 7+" or "IE7+".

    If that doesn’t work, try "Announcing IE7+" (the actual name of this thread).

    If there’s no problem with the name, then there must be a bug in the search engine.

  154. Anonymous says:

    @Paul: We’re already planning for the next two releases of IE after IE7.

  155. Anonymous says:

    Do you know how many people have downloaded the new beta2 version of the software?  Also, do you have percentage of how many computer users use Internet Explorer vs. other browsers?  

  156. Anonymous says:

    So, is it official? Has MS decided that this was a dumb idea, and dropped it in favor of IE7 only?

    It appears by the comments on here, and echoing through the development community that this was a bad idea,… so much so, that it was submitted to the Daily!

    I think this blog needs a page for the final status of the various messages/posts.

    oh, and is the layout complete for input buttons with 30 chars yet?

    Example::

    The recent cache issue: MS decides that its initial idea was not good, reverting to spec behavior.

    The IE7+ name, revoked for reasons of awkwardness and parsing incompatibility moving forward.

    Layout Complete. (what qualifies as a bug? because most of us dont think it’s close to ready yet (just look at the cache post… what’s with the vertical page of whitespace?)

    PNG Support: yeah, its in there, but scaling messes it up – status update? are there internal builds that have this fixed?

    Greedy image loading bug… has this been fixed yet? e.g. if I declare an image as a background in CSS (ie6), it loads every time it is referenced. (no cache)

  157. Anonymous says:

    @Blog++: The name on Vista is still IE7+.

    To be clear, the behavior of the pre/post check header combination above isn’t in the spec, so it wouldn’t really be correct to say that we "went back to spec" behavior.

    As for the layout of this page, it’s designed such that a wide image will flow below the box to the right if needed.  That’s not a bug, it’s a feature.  You could code it differently if you wanted different behavior.

    For the "input button" layout complete, I’m not sure what you’re asking.  If you’re asking about the problem where the rounded corners are ugly when a themed button goes beyond a certain width, the answer is no, this will not be fixed in this release.

    There have been some improvements to image scaling recently; I’m not sure what problems you’ve encountered, so I can’t say they’ve been fixed.

    The bug you call "Greedy image loading" does not repro in any version of IE7 that I’ve tested.

  158. Anonymous says:

    The IE Team blog have announced that Internet Explorer running on Windows Vista will be known as Internet…

  159. Anonymous says:

    Slightly off the Exchange topic today but with good reason.&amp;nbsp;I have recently seen a few interesting…

  160. Anonymous says:

    I had mentioned a while back that we planned to call the version of IE7 in Windows Vista “Internet…

  161. Anonymous says:

    在五月底的时候,微软的IE开发小组曾说过要将Windows Vista中的IE命名为“Ineternet Explorer 7 ”。但现在他们又改变了注意,放弃了“ ”的称谓,没有后缀,没有.x,就只是“Internet Explorer 7”。

  162. Anonymous says:

    You know you’re in Houston when the forecast calls for a high of 89 and you’re grateful that the temps will at least be under 90. Yes, it’s true. Eighty-nine degrees in early August is actually kinda remarkable around here….

  163. Anonymous says:

    Thank goodness Microsoft saw sense.

    I can’t imagine how many people would have asked me &quot;where do I…