IE7 Hits the Street


Just in case you missed it somehow, we released IE7 last Wednesday. In the first four days over three million of you have already downloaded the final release.  Thank you! (If you’re not one of those three million, you can get it here.)

We expect the numbers to continue to climb steadily until we start distributing via Automatic Updates in a few weeks. Clearly, we expect IE7 adoption to really take off then.  If you haven’t tested your website with IE7 yet, please use the tools Scott posted about a few weeks ago to help you prepare.

With the final release, we got a chance to do some fun tech community activities. For instance, on the night of the launch, we hosted a dinner in San Francisco for about twenty leaders in the local blogging community. Afterwards, Jeremiah Owyang posted his thoughts and Thomas Hawk put up a great set of photos. We also finally let our product managers do some real marketing. We have the first IE radio spot that I can remember us doing, and we created some mobile billboards that cruised through 10 major U.S. cities.  I’ve included a few photos below.

Of course, we’re not done with IE7 yet. Next up are the localized versions of IE7 for Windows XP and, of course, IE7 in Windows Vista. (Really!)

Tony Chor
Group Program Manager

IE7 mobile billboard in DallasIE7 mobile billboards in New York City

Comments (251)

  1. Anonymous says:

    Definitively, I don’t like IE :)

    Its CSS support it’s not good. I think Microsoft MUST forget about the Intershit Explorer program

  2. Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis says:

    Interesting, but 3 million out of what? What’s the install base of Windows XP these days? 250 or 300 million?

  3. Dave says:

    "If you haven’t tested your website with IE7 yet, please use the tools Scott posted about a few weeks ago to help you prepare."

    I consider this attitude very arrogant. Why should we have to test *our* websites to see if they work with *your* new browser? If they work with IE6, shouldn’t they work with IE7?

    I assume that you have no quarms if I send you a bill for the extra time I have to spend modifying my already working websites that I finished for my clients years ago?

  4. Earl says:

    IE 7 works like it was left in the street. And run over repeatedly.

    If I were you all, I’d be embarassed by putting my name on this piece of work. Any chance you all will fix the myriad bugs before IE 8?

    Or will you just thumb your noses at all that and go about like nothing is wrong?

  5. I agree with Dave, I find it arrogant. In fact, it’s even funny when you realize that this release is almost coincident with the release of Firefox 2.0 and that they seem able to make new releases that don’t break compatibility. Oh wait, maybe it is that they do respect the standards…

    Anyways, I ask the same question that Dave, can I send you the bill for the extra time to make work again all the webapps of my client, that worked nice with IE5, IE6 and Firefox 1.5 and that work nice with Firefox 2.0 but NOT with IE7 ?

  6. Tom says:

    "I consider this attitude very arrogant. Why should we have to test *our* websites to see if they work with *your* new browser? If they work with IE6, shouldn’t they work with IE7? "

    @Dave:

    *You* have to put in the work because the websites that *you* wrote are not standards-compliant.

  7. Andi says:

    Not sure if this has been mentioned on previous posts or not – will there be a Windows 2000 release?

  8. Mike says:

    Yes I was one of the three million who downloaded it. Twice in fact neither time did the installation work, the browser just hangs and changing the url makes no difference. Still I have not seen a response to comment I posted previously.

  9. Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis says:

    @Dave

    "If they work with IE6, shouldn’t they work with IE7?"

    The short answer is no, not necessarily. Many websites were developed using "hacks" that relied on bugs in IE6’s support for specified web standards to achieve certain effects in IE6. IE7 fixes many of those bugs, and so breaks many of those hacks.

    "I assume that you have no quarms if I send you a bill for the extra time I have to spend modifying my already working websites that I finished for my clients years ago?"

    The only hope of future-proofing web content is to design to web specifications, rather than the quirks of particular user agents. Browsers come and go, and as they do so their support for those specifications gradually improves.

    The one exception to this general rule is that you should try and ensure that actual meaningful content is still accessible as possible, and that does mean paying some attention to the capabilities of existing user agents. Even then, you should code with an eye to the future.

    For example, user agents should render Q with default surrounding quotation marks. Unfortunately, IE6, IE7, and the biggest screen reader, JAWS, all bungle this simple task entirely. Until Microsoft and Freedom Scientific come to grips with this awesome programming challenge, if we need to ensure accessibility we should follow the advice of WCAG and avoid Q for the time being. I somewhat hesitantly suggest replacing it with:

    The computer said, "<span class="quotation">Hello world!</span>"

    That way, at some future date the information is preserved and the code can easily be reworked to use Q. And at least it shouldn’t actually break incomprehensibly in future user agents.

  10. hAl says:

    I would guess the installation base of windows XP is probably closer to a billion than 200 million.

    Even if the autopmatic upgrade will update 10 million copies every night (about 20 terabytes of data ??) it would then take up to three months to upgrade all XP clients.  

  11. hAl says:

    @Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis

    Your Q problem is just a bad choice of implementation on your part.

    The use of q element is not advised

    See for instance:

    http://www.webdevout.net/tidings/2006/09/26/there-is-no-solution-for-the-q-element/

  12. hAl says:

    Of course not fully implementing the q element in IE is also not a good choice by MS but it isn’t exclusive to MS that this element isn’t supported properly.

    Also it isn’t really a much needed element.

  13. Jeff says:

    Oh, no. Did somebody link to this post on Slashdot again?

  14. ADAXL says:

    I second Dave and LostInBrittany. Work should go on as fast as possible to make IE more standards compliant. Microsoft forced us to use hacks on our pages for years because IE6 was such as mess. Now, we need two sets of hacks to accommodate IE6 and IE7. We are not amused.

  15. Jeff says:

    Yes, -obviously- they intentionally decided that they wouldn’t release internationalized versions ASAP, but that they would unnecessarily delay the release for months, just because they wanted to. Because they hate foreigners.

    End of sarcasm.

  16. Dave says:

    @Tom

    "*You* have to put in the work because the websites that *you* wrote are not standards-compliant."

    Rubbish. Although you are correct that some of the websites I developed do not validate. Others, though, completely follow standards and the pages still display differently in IE7 than in IE6. Standards compliance is not the point in this case:

    Microsoft took this arrogant stance with XP Service Pack 2 too, which had no improvements to web-standards support.

    http://www.microsoft.com/uk/windows/sp2/what-it-means.mspx

    The point is that my customers are not going to be willing to pay for an update to their website that has been effectively made compulsory by Microsoft. As soon as IE7 goes into Windows Update, lots of angry website owners are going to be ringing up their developers and demanding that their website be fixed.

    Like LostInBrittany says, Firefox seems to manage it with no problems – with websites that are both valid and invalid.

    I applaud the IE team for supporting more CSS and Webstandards, but the hacks we all know and love should have been left in until IE7 has the same level of standards support as Firefox/Safari/Opera do.

    At the moment we are left to develop for IE7 with no means of targeting it other than conditional comments which, we all know deep down, aren’t *really* valid (even if they just look like comments to the validator).

    Dave

  17. Arieta says:

    Personally I think IE7 is nothing more then a bugfix to the bugs that piled up in 5 years for IE6. It manages to do that fairly good, but in the process it created new bugs (and not necesserily because of the rendering fixes, I’m talking about images being loaded in half, etc). Also a lot of very annoying things were left unfixed, ex. PNG Gamma and Table loading, both which can be highly irritating when designing webpages.

    And it’s still highly unconfigurable, other then hacking registry. Where can I edit the time it takes for a page to time out, or the amount of connections that can be made by the browser at once? It can only be done in the Registry, and thats rather annoying.

    IE7 is nothing more then a service pack for a highly broken browser. Spend effort on actually improving the browser instead of marketing please.

    And I’m saying this even though I use only IE, since its still the fastest and most effective browser, but the rendering bugs, or rather, the fact that they were left unfixed, are getting on my nerves too.

  18. Jeff says:

    "I applaud the IE team for supporting more CSS and Webstandards, but the hacks we all know and love should have been left in until IE7 has the same level of standards support as Firefox/Safari/Opera do."

    Can you -imagine- the size of the outrage if the IE team decided that they wouldn’t fix any of the layout bugs?

    Anyway, while I can feel your pain about customers not wanting to pay for a compulsory update to their site: the world changes. Technologies changes. Software changes. If your customers didn’t take into account that the world changes and that updates are occasionally necessary, maybe they didn’t completely think their website purchase through.

    It’s not a perfect analogy, but: If I create a movie that distributors release on VHS, should they rightfully be angry if their users start using DVD players and I charge them for transferring it to DVD?

  19. Tony Chor reports that IE7 was downloaded over 3 million times in just 4 days . That&#39;s pretty amazing

  20. hAl says:

    @Henk Tiggelaar

    A major update like IE7 takes months to spread anyways due to limitations in upgrade capacity. Also the translations of IE7 will probably occur in simular order to those of Vista.

    It is really of little consequense release to some language areas later. It probably even makes it easier to plan ahead upgrade capacity per region.

  21. iecrash.com says:

    Too bad this pretty site doesn’t yet work with IE7 :(

    http://iecrash.com/

  22. Bart says:

    Nothing happens with your so-called "crash". What a waste of domain names :p.

  23. Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis says:

    @hAI

    Not sure quite what you mean by "Your Q problem is just a bad choice of implementation on your part." It’s not only my problem. I didn’t even contribute to HTML 4 specification, so I didn’t choose the implementation of Q. I have been actively pushing for a more workable treatment of Q in CSS and XHTML 2. See this thread:

    lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2006Sep/0141.html

    With regards to:

    http://www.webdevout.net/tidings/2006/09/26/there-is-no-solution-for-the-q-element/

    Thanks, but I’ve already read it. As I explained to the author at the time, his claim that ELinks doesn’t handle Q either needs qualification. In 16 color mode ELinks displays Q content in cyan to distinguish it (an unfortunate bug means that some of the coloring of elements doesn’t happen correctly in 256 color mode). More to the point, it has been fixed so that the current development version generates quotation punctuation just like Lynx.

    In fact, the only really persuasive reason not to rely on Q is JAWS, because asking people to change screen reader is an infinitely more disruptive (and usually highly expensive) proposition than asking them to switch browser. If you’d like to use Q and support IE and JAWS, I’d suggest using Q but surrounding it with quotation punctuation hidden in conditional comments aimed at IE7/Win and earlier. (The IE Team have suggested that they will fix Q in the next version. Here’s hoping.) I didn’t suggest this in the previous comment (although I have suggested it elsewhere) because it won’t work *absolutely* everywhere, but it will work in most user agents and is probably the most future proof solution. (For example, users of Orca plus current ELinks will still have problems with Q, but these should be resolved with the next version of ELinks.)

    For what it’s worth, Freedom Scientific have claimed to me that JAWS already does support Q, but I haven’t managed to get it working; I’m waiting to see what their technical support comes up with next.

    "it isn’t really a much needed element". Well, you’re entitled to your opinion; I just wish you’d attempted to justify it. As it happens, I strongly disagree. Quotation is fundamental technology of human discourse compromised by the ambiguities of traditional typography that Q neatly resolves.

    For yet more discussion of Q see:

    alistapart.com/articles/qtag

    (The article itself proposes a deeply counter-productive technique that breaks browsers that do support Q, but the comments are interesting.)

    @ADAXL

    "I second Dave and LostInBrittany. Work should go on as fast as possible to make IE more standards compliant."

    This is confused: it is precisely because IE is now "more standards compliant" that the IE Team are calling on developers to check their pages.

    "Microsoft forced us to use hacks on our pages for years because IE6 was such as mess."

    They may have encouraged this, but in fact developers who used such hacks in order to achieve certain mostly cosmetic effects were ignoring other developers who kept telling them they should follow standards to avoid such problems.

    @Dave

    "Others, though, completely follow standards and the pages still display differently in IE7 than in IE6."

    When you say they display differently, do they display more or less in accordance with standards in IE7 than IE6?

    "I applaud the IE team for supporting more CSS and Webstandards, but the hacks we all know and love should have been left in until IE7 has the same level of standards support as Firefox/Safari/Opera do."

    Allow me to disagree. From what I’ve seen, most of the hacks now broken depended on bugs in IE’s standards support, and their use involved a rejection of standards-based development.

    "At the moment we are left to develop for IE7 with no means of targeting it other than conditional comments which, we all know deep down, aren’t *really* valid (even if they just look like comments to the validator)."

    They don’t "just look like comments", they actually *are* just comments. That IE happens to think they aren’t is IE’s problem, not a flaw in your markup. And they are certainly preferable to CSS hacks or quirks mode, which depend on bugs in IE’s standards support which may get fixed in future versions.

    @Arieta:

    "And I’m saying this even though I use only IE, since its still the fastest and most effective browser".

    It’s interesting isn’t it. I tend to find Firefox works better than anything else (and, with the correct extensions, offers more functionality to boot), but I’d have thought Opera probably wins out in the straight speed stakes (among the graphical browsers). Maybe it depends a lot on the particular sites you habitually visit. I wonder if you use a lot of MSDN or Hotmail or DHTML-heavy sites optimized for JScript’s idiosyncracies?

    @Jeff:

    "If your customers didn’t take into account that the world changes and that updates are occasionally necessary, maybe they didn’t completely think their website purchase through."

    Indeed. The great thing about developing to specifications rather than buggy browsers is that in 100 years time people will still be able to use your content by referring to the original specification. And if you think people won’t be looking at your ephemera a century from now, perhaps you need to pay more attention to http://www.archive.org/web/web.php 😉

  24. Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis says:

    Regarding Q, someone always fails to read such linked materials and pops up to claim it’s a pointless element because you can just insert the relevant punctuation directly into your markup. Leaving aside that the idea that quotation punctuation is a sacred preserve of the author is rather novel, and that such punctuation is inherently ambiguous and so is not really suitable for use in online scholarship or by speaking browsers, the fact is that *not all punctuation can be inserted into markup*. (I give an example of such punctuation in the www-style thread.) Furthermore, real print style traditions tend to force quotations that exceed a given number of words like 50 or 60 (depending on the guide) into a block display. In theory, CSS is the tool for this job. (Currently CSS is as inadequate as HTML, not least because it can’t count words.)

  25. Jeff says:

    "Indeed. The great thing about developing to specifications rather than buggy browsers is that in 100 years time people will still be able to use your content by referring to the original specification."

    Yes, if those companies were interested in having their content available to users in 2106, that would be a good reason. If companies, however, want their content available now and in the near future to a userbase as large as possible, they’re just going to have to deal with the behavior of the userbase’s applications and technology of choice.

    Seriously, standards are great and all, but if a company wants to push their website to a large userbase and didn’t think about unavoidable but unforeseen updates in their budgets/contracts, then they’re not very good at business.

  26. David William Wrixon says:

    Not sure where all these user stats come from. If you go to internetworldstats. com, you will see that the total online population is now 1 Billion. What is being suggested is that only one in five of these have an XP licence. Shucks, I though Windows was suppose to be a markt leader! Anyway using a simpletons maths, 200Million divided by 10 Million per night is 20. How do you equated that with 3 Months. The only reason that is will take 3 Months is that Microsoft have not got their finger out and got all the necessary language packs ready for Automatic Download.

  27. Doug says:

    Good job! Well done!

    I have been using IE7 since the release and I like it!

    Doug.

  28. David William Wrixon says:

    If you are after a global market, then you have a lot of catching up to do by the looks of thing!!!

    Firefox 36

    IE7     1

  29. rc says:

    @Dave

    Yes, YOU are to make your sites compatible with the most popular browser. If you don’t, you lose. Complains, laments amd curses don’t help.

  30. ADAXL says:

    Why should my posting be confusing? Until now, there were browsers that observed web standards (w3.org) and there was IE6. Now, we have an extra worry: IE7, with is neither fully compliant, nor does it have the same bugs as IE6. Microsoft stopped halfway instead of delivering a truly standars-compliant browser.

    And, yes, Microsoft forced their IE6 on us. You can’t ignore 80-90% of the visitors. Since MS insisted on keeping old IE6 without improvements until now, we could only work with tweaks and hacks.

  31. Tim says:

    Do my tests confirm, that in order for the CSS max-height property to work, you have to have a strict doctype of xhtml set?

    If so, I realy don’t understand why.  This was a CSS property that you didn’t support before, why on earth does your fix, require me to make a code change?

    Tim

  32. Brad says:

    @rc, don’t get on Dave’s case about his site(s).

    As developers, we all strive to make the best content for our clients, and work magic arround the bugs.

    For IE6, we spent lots of time, jumping through hoops to make our stuff work.

    Then, IE7 final is dumped on us, before it is ready and before the RC2 was issued (correction, the RC2 was disapointingly never issued)  Now we have less than a month to run around updating all of our code, for all of our sites and applications.  Best of all, we still have to deal with IE6’s issues, because IE7 isn’t available for Win2k etc. and IE7 will not be rolled out in lots of offices, because IT departements are holding it back.

    Side-rant: Is there an Admin tool, to rollback IE7 across the network? I can see a lot of companies, thinking they are ok, then finding a critical issue blocking their use (e.g. critical app incompatibility) then needing to rollback any/all instalations of IE7.

    You need to ensure that a link to this tool is promenantly posted on this blog.

    That all said, I too hartily agree that the Arogance of this post telling me I need to go and fix my code.

    Development is a nightmare now, because not only do we have to test on multiple browsers, but we also have to test on multiple machines because we can’t run IE6/IE7 in paralell, even though 100% of the Web Standards based applications and web sites use 0% of the IE-Platform technology.  All we care about is the rendering… the DOM, the JavaScript, the HTML, and the CSS.

    Yet another frustrated developer.

  33. The Internet Explorer 7 Team posted an amazing list of must-have Add-Ins for IE7 . I’m using almost all

  34. PNG Favicon support says:

    For Googler’s help in finding this post, and hopefully the answer:

    PNG Favicon support

    PNG Favicon support

    PNG Favicon support

    PNG Favicon support

    We were told that IE7 would support PNG Favicons, our tests thus far indicate the opposite.  Has this been fixed? What is the correct syntax? Any special needs? If my link tag includes an xmlns:foo attribute, will this affect the rendering? Does the doctype make a difference?

  35. Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis says:

    @Jeff

    "If companies, however, want their content available now and in the near future to a userbase as large as possible, they’re just going to have to deal with the behavior of the userbase’s applications and technology of choice."

    That’s precisely why I am willing to compromise (a little) in favour of current accessibility. But from what I’ve seen many "hacks" (as opposed to cautious use of technology in line with current support) are not included to make content demonstably more accessible but in order to prop up some inessential bit of JavaScript or CSS whose alleged usability benefit has not been empirically proven.

    It’s relatively easy to make "Ajax"-style applications comply with standards (though few frameworks put any effort into compliance). It’s actually rather more difficult to make them accessible to as large a userbase as possible; see especially:

    http://www.sitepoint.com/article/ajax-screenreaders-work

    juicystudio.com/article/making-ajax-work-with-screen-readers.php

    @ADAXL:

    "Why should my posting be confusing?"

    I didn’t say your posting was confusing; I judged it "confused". I’m assuming that when you seconded Dave, you were agreeing with him that developers should not have to check old sites in IE7. But you also said that "Work should go on as fast as possible to make IE more standards compliant". This seems contradictory (to me, anyhow) because improving IE’s standards support breaks some old sites.

    "Until now, there were browsers that observed web standards (w3.org) and there was IE6. Now, we have an extra worry: IE7, with is neither fully compliant, nor does it have the same bugs as IE6. Microsoft stopped halfway instead of delivering a truly standars-compliant browser"

    Well, there are no *fully* compliant web browsers. There are only more and less compliant browsers, with IE mired firmly in the "less" camp. I have seen people worry that IE7 will make some current designs (as opposed to code) impossible because of hacks that are no longer available; I haven’t yet seen this demonstrated. But even if that were demonstrated, I’m not persuaded that a more standards compliant IE is ever to be seriously regretted, as I think relying on "hacks" continuing to work was a bad idea from the start.

  36. Please, make it:

    – an Update of full priority (from ie6 is a great improbement),

    – that pirate copies of Windows can use (there is a lot of piracy, but all the users are users),

    – and for Windows 2000 too (in a lot of places win2k is trusted more than XP)

    please

    please

    please

    you marketshare will apreciate that

  37. Aedrin says:

    LostInBrittany: "that this release is almost coincident with the release of Firefox 2.0"

    FireFox 2.0 is being released because of IE7. You tell me what major version update is in there and I’ll take my words back.

    ADAXL: "Microsoft forced us to use hacks"

    Hacks are for newbies that refuse to work with the tools they have.

    Dave: "but the hacks we all know and love"

    Speak for yourself. I don’t take shortcuts. I actually do the work to design a website.

    "I consider this attitude very arrogant. "

    I consider your attitude very arrogant too. There is nothing wrong about asking people to test their website themself. What, you want Microsoft to test all websites? You must be in LaLa land, the internet is more than just your webpages.

    At least IE makes an effort not to break the hundreds of programs they are used in, or all the extensions/addons developed for it. You can’t say the same for FireFox. FireFox is behind in maturity so they appear quick and youthful. -If- it should pickup, it’ll grow and grow. And soon a new browser will be released and everyone will be posting junk like this on some FireFox blog.

  38. cooperpx says:

    Congratulations guys! It’s out!

    http://ieblog.members.winisp.net/images/Dallas.jpg

    Love how "confidence" is incredibly understated. I am reminded of "The Apprentice". 😉

    Seriously though, I know damn well you guys have all your fingers crossed, and I’m right there with you.

    Please restore the feedback mechanism. I have noticed a few things broken in the release I wish to report … in addition to the things I reported that didn’t make the release. Newsgroups don’t cut it.

  39. Dave says:

    @Aedrin

    "Speak for yourself. I don’t take shortcuts. I actually do the work to design a website."

    I detect a slight case of little man syndrome here.

    I do do the work to design a website. Please do not assume that I don’t. Not all the people on this list are idiots. If you had read my 2nd post you would have noticed that I have also designed websites which are totally compliant (without any css hacks) which still look different in IE7 than IE6.

    Again, Firefox has been upgraded and sites look completely the same. Valid and invalid. Mozilla do not issue a "please modify all your websites so they work with our browser" notice when they upgrade their browser – the sites just stay working, and the case should be the same with IE7.

    If IE wasn’t the main browser on the majority of desktop PCs, I wouldn’t mind. This browser will get installed on millions of PCs everywhere and is going to cause thousands and thousands of extra working hours for developers who will probably have clients who don’t want to pay because their websites suddenly broke for "no reason".

    It is alright saying that sites shouldn’t be expected to last forever but even some 100% compliant sites developed within 2005/2006 will display differently in IE7 because it still has poor(ish) standards support compared to other browsers.

  40. Singh400 says:

    Congrats to the whole of the IE team. This is one fine browser (Y) Well done.

    Oh and nice pics. Next time see if you can get some mobile billboards in the UK.

  41. Aedrin says:

    "Again, Firefox has been upgraded and sites look completely the same."

    FireFox hasn’t released any major update either. They make a plugin a standard feature and call it a major upgrade. This was done in the browser wars (IE vs NS), but today this is cliche.

    All this complaining isn’t going to help anyone.

    They’re working on improving IE, but unlike FireFox, there is more to it than just fixing the bug. It has to be tested with a lot of things before it can be considered for release.

    And as I’ve told others, the standards aren’t perfect themself either. They should (and are, I hope) only a recommendation. So ‘standard’ is a big word.

  42. Nate says:

    Funny, Aedrin, all of the work in the world couldn’t get around IE6’s lack of standards support. I suppose you just used poor HTML markup to design your sites. Your client is probably not getting what they payed for.

    @ The Developemnt Team

    I truly appreciate the development team trying to make this process more transparent with IE7, but you have to understand that a ton of web designers have a deep mistrust of Microsoft and IE6 because of the years we have gone without web standards support. Microsoft turned a deaf ear on us and let IE6 pretty much force hacked web design on us for the past five years. Also understand that the more standards compliant you become, the less you’ll hear us grouse about it. If you haven’t already, you should get one of the more prominent web standards gurus to work closely with your team.

  43. Pete says:

    ie7 what? who?

    the real headline should of course be

    FIREFOX 2 HITS THE STREET TODAY!

    WHOO HOO!! YEAH!! GO FOXY!!

  44. Nate says:

    "They’re working on improving IE, but unlike FireFox, there is more to it than just fixing the bug. It has to be tested with a lot of things before it can be considered for release."

    Maybe Microsoft shouldn’t have built their operating system around a web browser, perhaps?

    "And as I’ve told others, the standards aren’t perfect themself either. They should (and are, I hope) only a recommendation. So ‘standard’ is a big word."

    This is completely incorrect. If you truly are a web designer you would know that back in the day, they went from ‘recommendations’ to ‘standards’, simply because Microsoft and Netscape weren’t about to listen to "the little people". Today, major browser makers take those standards very seriously because they allow content to be seen across a wide variety of devices, not just computers. I can absolutely say now that you’re not a web designer, or, if you are, one that supports the proprietary nonsense that existed during the browser wars of the ’90s.

  45. Lots of strong opinions and active discussion as usual I see.

    I know that testing your sites is a pain, but I don’t see how we avoid it (obviously, Microsoft had to test tons of our sites too). As some of you pointed out, Microsoft has consistently tried to preserve app compat in all of our product releases, but no one can guarantee your sites continue to work as expected except you. In most cases you won’t need to *fix* anything; notice, I said "test".

    We did fix a lot of bugs in IE7 and improved our support for standards; in some of those cases, there was no way to preserve 100% compatibility without introducing crazy amounts of complexity (i.e. versioned strict mode implementations). There were other changes aside from layout including security improvements, improvements in networking, and, of course, our user agent string. All of these changes are things we heard from you, many through this blog and your comments.

    We tried to ease this transition by holding what was perhaps the longest beta in IE (maybe Microsoft) history (releasing six public builds during that process) and by trying to communicate our changes and plans throughout that time. I’d love more ideas on how we can be even more transparent so we don’t surprise anyone.

    To answer a few other questions:

    * No, we won’t have a Win2K version. There were too many things we depend on in newer OS’ to make Win2K a pragmatic release.

    * We need the additional time to test our localized versions, and it’s true that our loc timeline is related to Vista timing (same resources doing the work.) We thought it was more important to get versions out as they were completed vs. waiting for them all to e done.

    * I don’t know what our UK marketing plans are.

    -Tony

  46. Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis says:

    @Tony Chor

    "I’d love more ideas on how we can be even more transparent so we don’t surprise anyone."

    Sure thing:

    1. Bring back the bug tracker *now*. Never take it down again. Make it possible to browse bugs and suggestions without signing in with a Windows Live ID. (I was flabbergasted that you folks took down the public record of IE7’s bugs just as people were trying to cope with its deployment.)

    2. Make it possible to subscribe to updates on particular bugs/suggestions with an ordinary email address (as with Bugzilla).

    3. Publish a rough gameplan for standards support in IE8 and IE9. It’s okay to revise the exact details as you go: the important thing is to provide a clear sense of direction about what standards you will back.

    4. Microsoft as a whole needs to stop speaking out of two sides of their mouth about web standards, and start leading by example. Want developers to believe you’re serious about web standards? Want developers to remove their hacks now that IE is more standards compliant? Fix your broken homepage already. It’s embarrassing that one of the biggest software companies in the world (apparently) can’t code valid, never mind conformant, (X)HTML. IBM seem to manage it, why can’t Microsoft?

    5. You should work on making it possible to install IE8 alongside IE7 without spending $200 for a second copy of Windows. That would encourage people to test new versions. Ideally, you should come up with a similar solution for IE6. Perhaps something like WinPE could be adapted for this purpose?

  47. Harry says:

    When is the runonce page going to be fixed so that those of us with EN-GB settings aren’t accidentally forced to change to EN-US?

  48. SVC Alumnus says:

    IE7 is a great browser – it’s a great replacement for Deepnet Explorer and hopefully has good security.

  49. Les développeurs d’IE7 sont maintenant en vacance. Mais les commerciaux prennent le relai. Et on peut

  50. Fduch says:

    How come the feedback page is closed?

    Are the devs fed up by "happy customer" feedback.

    Want some earplugs and blindfolds?

  51. EliasAlucard says:

    Hey, instead of complaining about how awful IE7 is with standards, you should just do what I did: block it. It’s just easier that way, and you’ll save yourself lots of CSS hacks and standards breaking code.

    Plus, it’ll make Microsoft realise how important standards actually are, and speed up their work on IE.

    The day Microsoft will make a proper browser which respects the W3C standards, that’ll be the day I take into consideration of unblocking Internet Explorer.

  52. Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis says:

    @EliasAlucard:

    "It’s just easier that way, and you’ll save yourself lots of CSS hacks and standards breaking code."

    Deliberately locking out IE is obviously not easier than writing code to the standards, and ignoring IE’s lack of support. Indeed, blocking IE reliably is quite difficult.

    "Plus, it’ll make Microsoft realise how important standards actually are, and speed up their work on IE."

    You wish! With the partial exception of email services and banks, there are few websites so unique and essential that there would not be a rival willing to support users’ choice of Internet Explorer.

    Moreover, such lock-outs verge on hypocrisy. One reason for having web standards in the first place is to maximize accessibility and interoperability. If Internet Explorer can’t handle those standards, fine. But (in my opinion) to deliberately punish users simply for their (or their corporation’s) choice of browser goes directly against the open spirit of the web. Worse, such punitive measures disproportionately affect the most vulnerable of computer users. Freedom Scientific’s JAWS is the most common screen reader, and until the latest version (7.10) it only officially supported IE. Whereas for most sighted users, switching browsers is easy and free, for JAWS users it is difficult and expensive – potentially very expensive. To upgrade to Jaws 7.10 Standard for XP Home costs at least $895; to switch to, GW Micro Window-Eyes 5.5, a rival that also supports Firefox, can cost at least $795. (While you can purchase these products along with a software maintenance agreement that includes upgrades, such agreements themselves cost around $300.) But perhaps you intend to fund such upgrades personally?

    "The day Microsoft will make a proper browser which respects the W3C standards"

    No browser fully complies with existing specifications; no browser endeavours to support all the specifications published by W3C. What *precisely* are the criteria for admission to the magic circle of browsers allowed to view your web content? Are *those* criteria specified anywhere?

    Here’s a better idea. Write your code to the standards, while trying to ensure as far as possible that content is accessible with current user agents, especially those required by assistive technologies. If you want to encourage people to adopt better browsers, use the more sophisticated technologies they support to offer switchers a superior experience. Don’t just lock them out arbitrarily, because that risks associating better browsers with that obnoxious tactic. (Did "This page requires Internet Explorer" make you like IE? I’m guessing not.)

    Why not try channelling your understandable bitterness at IE into helping improve and spread FOSS assistive technology and making it a superior solution? Here’s two links to get you started:

    http://www.oatsoft.org/

    wiki.ubuntu.com/Accessibility

  53. Congrats on IE7. I’ve seen the shows on Channel 9 and you guys worked your a** of to make it. Good work and a fine browser. Still some miles to go, but you’ve come a long way. Keep it up for future releases.

  54. Jeff says:

    Elias,

    Good luck with 80% of your potential visitors not caring about your websites and going elsewhere.

  55. Baowoulf says:

    Is IE7 being released through MSN Update/Windows Update on November 1 or sometime just before? I know I can download it off the website but I prefer to go through Windows Update since I always do and was just curious.

  56. Baowoulf says:

    Er I mean I always go through MSN Update my bad. Sorry for the double post not sure if I can edit my posts in this blog or not.

  57. Stan says:

    @Tony,

    Uhm 6 public betas? thats funny, I count 3, and 1 RC.

    The first 2 were not public, which is quite sad, because if you had been open to suggestions and a public bug tracking site back then, maybe we wouldn’t be in this mess now!

    Still waiting for a public bug tracking system, and developers actually addressing the bugs!

  58. Aedrin says:

    "maybe we wouldn’t be in this mess now!"

    I fail to see how there is a mess…

    If you call blatant anti-Microsoft hypocrisy a mess, then I agree.

  59. Fred says:

    I use FF and I am embarrassed by its users.  They have destroyed more comment weblogs and discussion communitys than any other browser fanatics I know.   I may just stop using it since I.E. 7 works so well but I like the FF extensions.  If somebody acted like people do here on an airplane they would get silenced fast.  I think you should look at comment moderation or maybe start signups with user names and passwords.  I have to siff through to much junk and help forums are worse.  Free speech is nice in theory but nincompoops always want to ruin it for everyone.

  60. Simon says:

    Where can you report bugs.

    I’ve been trying to find somewhere to post a bug report, but the links to microsoft connect announced on this blog back in March don’t work anymore.

    If select boxes have the width set to a percentage and you swap the order of the options using .swapNode the select box width slowly shrinks away to nothing.

    try this small example:

    <pre>

    <html>

    <script language="javascript">

    function doClick()

    {

    s.options[4].swapNode(s.options[3]);

    }

    </script>

    <body>

    <select id="s" size=10 style="min-width:100%">

    <option>Option1</option>

    <option>Option2</option>

    <option>Option3</option>

    <option>Option4</option>

    <option>Option5</option>

    <option>Option6</option>

    <option>Option7</option>

    <option>Option8</option>

    <option>Option9</option>

    <option>Option10</option>

    <option>Option11</option>

    <option>Option12</option>

    </select><br/>

    <button onClick="doClick()">Click Me</button>

    </body>

    </pre>

  61. Simon says:

    Sorry, that example should be…

    <html>

    <script language="javascript">

    function doClick()

    {

    s.options[4].swapNode(s.options[3]);

    }

    </script>

    <body>

    <select id="s" size=10 style="width:100%">

    <option>Option1</option>

    <option>Option2</option>

    <option>Option3</option>

    <option>Option4</option>

    <option>Option5</option>

    <option>Option6</option>

    <option>Option7</option>

    <option>Option8</option>

    <option>Option9</option>

    <option>Option10</option>

    <option>Option11</option>

    <option>Option12</option>

    </select><br/>

    <button onClick="doClick()">Click Me</button>

    </body>

    </html>

  62. Andrew Csontos says:

    PLEASE, PLEASE PLEASE, fix window.prompt(). This is going to cause a ridiculous amount of work for web developers everywhere.

  63. Fiery Kitsune says:

    Hey IE Team… I liked the cake you guys sent to the Firefox Team.

    Did they send you guys a cake?

    The cake:

    http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/327/fromredmondwithlovehz0.jpg

  64. Al says:

    Tried it for about 6 hours under XP pro, and browsing slowed down by 40% from site to site, and constantly hung up.  As soon as I removed it performance came back to normal with IE 6.

    Another poorly tested buggy Microsoft effort it seems.  IE 6 is superior so far, till the bugs are out of seven.

    All I can say is it was a good uninstall program that worked, but left one item on the tool bar.

    If this is a sign of how well Vista will work it’s scary.

  65. EliasAlucard says:

    @Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis:

    "Moreover, such lock-outs verge on hypocrisy. One reason for having web standards in the first place is to maximize accessibility and interoperability."

    And that’s exactly what IE isn’t doing. IE is slowing down progress on interoperability and accessibility. Thus, I block it in protest.

    "Here’s a better idea. Write your code to the standards, while trying to ensure as far as possible that content is accessible with current user agents, especially those required by assistive technologies."

    LOL!

    My site is fully compliant XHTML 1.1 and that’s beside the point. It’s not that my code isn’t working with IE, it works fine with IE (although better with Firefox).

    Seriously, if everyone blocked Internet Explorer, the world would be a better place. At least cyberspace would.

  66. Angelsilver says:

    I started using IE7 a few days ago. Then I noticed things missing from webpages. On many webpages some button links that seem to use Java do not work and some do. I had some trouble with many links not responding. The windows update link takes me to a blank page and just says "done" then nothing. Flash does not seem to function properly if at all on most web pages. Google video gives me a google header, then a blank page that says done(after i click on a video to watch). I am sure I have reinstalled adobe flash once just in case, but now it won’t let me download it again to reinstall yet some pages say I need to install it to view the page. Did you people work with any other developers prior to release of this to work out the bugs? MY AOL openride stopped functioning so I had to completely remove it from my system, a reinstall does nothing to resolve that problem. Many webpages where I would go to look for a fix do not come up properly, to report a bug do not respond properly, And as I said, I would hope to find something on windows update to fix this problem software, yet windows update is a blank page… I suppose I will need to get firefox or something on here to go get an update, but I can’t seem to get good reponse from that webpage either as the download link is probably java or something that no longer works with IE7. Its to bad really, I was excited about IE7 and now I am just likely to get something else and stay with it out of the frustration I have had over the last few days. I hope it can be uninstalled, but I doubt my system will ever work as good as it did before… it is sad, really sad.

  67. Angelsilver says:

    cont. from above post…

    I just noticed that my backup of AOL, the old reliable 8.0 that I used sometimes because 9.0 had its own problems, the browser no longer works properly in that either. I found an ftp of the firefox 2.0… I hope that my computer is not garbage now that I installed IE7… wish me luck with firefox… I never needed it untill now. I suppose it won’t work with windows update though so I probably have to do a full wipe and reinstall, where am I going to back up 130gigs of files? God I am so upset with this… I thought you all beta tested this extensively… after all it took you forever to do an updated browser since IE6 came out!

  68. Nadav says:

    Hi,

    I encounter a certain problem since I upgraded from IE7 RC to RTM on WXP Professional x64 Edition. The RC version which was perfectly OK, and now I’m experiencing this annerving new behavior. Since I upgraded the 32-bit version has no Open in New Tab in the context menu! Tabbed browsing is enabled, of course. I can open a new tab manually and just C&P URLs, but this is too tiresome. The 64-bit version works OK. Again, before the upgrade everything was OK too.

    Can anyone advise?

    Thanks in advance,

    Nadav

  69. EricLaw [MSFT] says:

    Nadav: The missing "open in new tab" is usually caused by an older version of a third-party toolbar.  If you start IE in no-addons mode ( START > RUN > iexplore.exe -extoff ) is the menu item still missing.

  70. Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis says:

    @EliasAlucard

    "And that’s exactly what IE isn’t doing. IE is slowing down progress on interoperability and accessibility. Thus, I block it in protest. … Seriously, if everyone blocked Internet Explorer, the world would be a better place. At least cyberspace would."

    If everyone did the same, it would affect Microsoft. But almost nobody is going to do it, because enormous commercial incentives, accessibility practice, and concern for the poor end-user all stand in the way. Given this, your "protest" will do nothing but make the web less interoperable and accessible and tar alternative browsers with antisocial tactics.

    But let me repeat the crucial question: "What *precisely* are the criteria for admission to the magic circle of browsers allowed to view your web content? Are *those* criteria specified anywhere?"

    For instance, Opera supports aural CSS but Firefox does not; does that not mean Firefox is "slowing down progress on interoperability and accessibility"? Oh, but wait, Firefox supports MathML but Opera doesn’t. So maybe it’s Opera that is "slowing down progress on interoperability and accessibility"?

    Sure, Internet Explorer lags behind either browser. But it doesn’t make much sense to me to penalize IE users if you cannot articulate the principle of exclusion in terms of the standards themselves. On the contrary, excluding IE does go against accessibility standards. WCAG explicitly includes a concern for an "early version of a browser, a different browser entirely, a voice browser, or a different operating system":

    http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#Introduction

    The relevance of this is obvious, when (as I pointed out before) IE is used by so many disabled users.

    "My site is fully compliant XHTML 1.1 and that’s beside the point. It’s not that my code isn’t working with IE, it works fine with IE (although better with Firefox)."

    If your site is coded as "XHTML 1.1" and yet it works with IE, then it is (probably) *not* compliant XHTML 1.1, since XHTML 1.1 should be served as application/xhtml+xml and *never* as text/html:

    http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/

    http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2854.txt

    Although this behaviour can be modified by registry hacking or plugins, by default IE refuses to render that MIME type and offers it as a file for download.

    You can check what MIME type you’re serving by going to your page in Firefox, selecting Tools, then Page Info. The MIME type is listed as "Type:".

    You might consider implementing content negotiation to support the various browsers which don’t handle XHTML that well (including Lynx and ELinks). Serve application/xhtml only to browsers whose HTTP Accept header *explicitly* requests application/xhtml+xml with a higher q value than that *implied* for text/html.

  71. @EricLaw

    >The missing "open in new tab" is usually caused by an older version of a third-party toolbar

    What is the recommended way to enable the "open in new tab" menu entry from an add-on when loading the menu resource directly from the SHDOCLC.dll? Certainly, the availability of this entry also depends whether tabbed browsing is enabled or not.

  72. goose says:

    Thank you for showing us that you’ve SAVED THE INTERNET!!!! IE7 is a major overhaul of the world’s most popular browser. It shows people are SMART and they specifically *choose* the best things, and the best things rise to the top. There’s no other logical explanation for its popularity. That’s why I choose it. Because most people use it, and that’s all that matters!

    Long live Internet Explorer!!!!

  73. EliasAlucard says:

    @Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis:

    Unbelievable. Like I didn’t know that IE doesn’t support application/xhtml+xml

    I mean, why did you think I blocked IE? It’s because it won’t work with my site either way.

    Only the index.html is served as text/html

    Anyway, nice talking to you.

  74. George Loone says:

    IMHO IE 7 starts revolution in internet browsers. I have uninstalled my old browser (FF) and installed IE7

  75. Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis says:

    @EliasAlucard

    "Like I didn’t know that IE doesn’t support application/xhtml+xml"

    You’re recommending a certain (in my view, counter-productive) practice to a general audience. I can’t assume that casual readers frequenting this blog know what MIME types IE does and does not support. So please don’t take things so personally.

    "I mean, why did you think I blocked IE? It’s because it won’t work with my site either way."

    Look, this is in direct contradiction to what you said earlier: "My site is fully compliant XHTML 1.1 and that’s beside the point. It’s not that my code isn’t working with IE, it works fine with IE (although better with Firefox)." So now I’m confused: does your code work in IE or not?

    As for why I *thought* you blocked IE, I thought it was partly a political act because that’s the reason you gave: "I block it in protest". And it’s with the political act that I particularly took issue (though the accessibility concerns remain).

    "Only the index.html is served as text/html"

    Which document type does index.html use?

  76. Alex says:

    I hoped IE 7 was a "real" browser, standard compliant (even if it does not support all the features that other browser have already) and thought for users and web developers. But now I understand that if IE 6 is the worst browser Microsoft had developed, IE 7 is pretty similar. You resolved a lot of bugs, but IE 7 is always a bad software, like Windows XP (I hate Windows XP, because of its inconceivable security bugs). Opera and Firefox are two browsers that are really standard compliant and are useful to web developers. IE 7 does not change the font size if in the CSS I declare the font size in pixels, but pixels are a RELATIVE unit, not an absolute unit! IE 7 simply zooms the page, but does not change the font size! And this is unacceptable for a browser standard compliant! The antiphishing filter is bad and it sometimes loops analizing a page. Microsoft has to understand that software like Windows XP SP2 and IE 6/7 are dangerous both to standard compliance and to user’s PC security. In the last week, I worked very hard to format and clean 4 PC infected by trojans only because they are connected to the internet (and they had antivirus, firewall and the latest security patches installed!). I hope Windows Vista will be better, but I probably am wrong. I agree with Dave…Microsoft’s attitude is always arrogant. I and all other webmasters/webdevelopers write our code following the standard…is YOUR browser that must be standard compliant, not our websites! I often spend a lot of time to write a standard code that works fine in any browser…and I have ALWAYS troubles with IE! Can I join to other users that want to send you their bill for the time spent with IE? I use IE only to test purpose, but I surf the web using Firefox and I install Firefox in any PC I clean from worms and trojans.

  77. jessu says:

    I cant find a way to close a tab, it there is only a single tab. The close button is no there.

  78. Aside from myself and maybe two or three other uh, standards compliant enthusiasts (or well standards compliance Nazi extremists) IE7 is generally great release and should be advertised to the world.

    I do hope though Internet Explorer will become an XHTML browser with version 8. Could someone point me to an IE Blog post (or other Microsoft source) that stated when IE8 is intended to be released (in any general sense)?

    – John

  79. Jug says:

    @Aedrin: "FireFox 2.0 is being released because of IE7. You tell me what major version update is in there and I’ll take my words back."

    There’s a large amount of improvements and fixes in Firefox 2.0 to warrant a "0.5 upgrade" over Firefox 1.5. Anti-phishing, tab undo, session saving, form spell checking, search suggestions, microsummaries, UI refresh, and much more, not to mention the hundreds of bug and stability fixes checked in.

  80. Kylie Mander says:

    I love IE7 guys… a perfect 10

    I have already notices a decline in FireFox users on my web sites!

  81. hAl says:

    The cake thingy with the guys from FF is funny.

    http://fredericiana.com/2006/10/24/from-redmond-with-love/

  82. Nadav says:

    EricLaw: Thanks for your prompt answer. I’ll try it out and report back further.

    Thanks again,

    Nadav

  83. Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis says:

    @Alex

    "Opera and Firefox are two browsers that are really standard compliant"

    No browser fully complies with W3C standards. Opera and Firefox support more W3C standards, and are more compliant with the standards that they do support, than IE.

    "I and all other webmasters/webdevelopers write our code following the standard"

    I wish! The majority of text/html web content is tag soup that doesn’t even validate, let alone conform:

    code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/element-body.html

    Only 25% of the more than 5000 web professionals who took part in SitePoint’s The State of Web Development 2006/2007 survey even *claimed* to ensure that all their markup validates (see the free Results Preview, page 6):

    http://www.sitepoint.com/reports/reportwebsurvey2006/

    Out of 738 sites standards-friendly enough to take part in CSS Reboot Spring 2006, 53% failed markup validation and most failed CSS validation:

    http://www.elementary-group-standards.com/web-standards/css-reboot-as-web-standards-validation-indicator.html

    None of this excuses Internet Explorer’s poor level of conformance of course; browser non-compliance is one of main reasons web content is so out of phase with web standards. Microsoft could go a long way towards fixing this situation by complying with W3C’s recommendation that agents should not silently correct errors, and inserting an icon in the status bar to indicate whether a page validates or not.

  84. theAK says:

    Instead of "IE7 Hits the Street", name this blog "Throw IE7 to the Street" 😀

  85. SDF says:

    Microsoft? Internet Explorer? CONFIDENCE?!?! Is that a joke?! LOOL

    FIREFOX ALL THE WAY!! FOREVER!!

  86. Aedrin says:

    There’s a large amount of improvements and fixes in Firefox 2.0 to warrant a "0.5 upgrade" over Firefox 1.5. Anti-phishing, tab undo, session saving, form spell checking, search suggestions, microsummaries, UI refresh, and much more, not to mention the hundreds of bug and stability fixes checked in.

    Like I said, they make a plugin or two standard (which I thought they were trying to avoid?) and call it a new version.

    All those "features" are small addons that most people don’t need and should’ve been provided in an official plugin pack of some sort.

    The bug and stability fixes are part of the minor upgrade cycle.

    And it’s not a 0.5 upgrade. Version system don’t (or shouldn’t) work that way. It’s a 1.0 to 2.0 upgrade. This indicates a large change in either functionality or code. I haven’t seen either. When I start up FireFox 2.0 I see FireFox 1.5 with close buttons on tabs (which most people dislike, but IE and Opera has them).

    I think that is one of the problems with the FireFox development team. Decisions on whether to add/change something are based on personal opinion. Ask them about making the vertical scrollbar always visible (I’ve lost track of the amount of people who complain about visual jolts from that), and they’ll tell you that it looks ugly and IE has it so they won’t make it.

    Professional? Not really.

  87. Mike Williams says:

    Harry wrote: When is the runonce page going to be fixed so that those of us with EN-GB settings aren’t accidentally forced to change to EN-US?

    Ditto for those of us with EN-AU settings. I reported this several times during the beta, and it looks like those of us outside the US are just getting a big EN-FU.

  88. Han Chung says:

    LOL, too many Firefox fanboys flaming around here.

  89. error says:

    Firefox is worst browser ever, period. All those FF zealots… What can I say?

  90. talishte says:

    Is missing the spell checker this one of the reasons I am using Firefox 2

  91. DJV says:

    On my work machine I have IE7, Firefox 2.0 and Opera 9.01 installed for testing purposes and just in case certain sites don’t work properly on one of the browsers. IE7 definetely looks like an improvement in some regards over IE6 but it sounds like from the previous posts they have neglected a lot of the requests from web developers. Interesting.

  92. Boss says:

    >Hey IE Team… I liked the cake you guys sent to the Firefox Team.

    >

    >Did they send you guys a cake?

    >

    >The cake:

    >

    >http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/327/fromredmondwithlovehz0.jpg

    Is that how all americans cakes looks like? No wonder why you are all sick

  93. Stuart Jones says:

    I updated "with confidence" to take MS’s own strapline.

    IE7 smashed all my IE icons (URL has generic "no icon") and caused Student Encarta 2006 to give "Navigation to the webpage was canceled" (I didn”t) and a script error.

    I also cannot uninstall IE7.  Most unimpressed.

    If only Microsoft would concentrate on getting rid of bugs rather than creating new ones all the time.

  94. Coder says:

    I hate the non-informative "The webpage cannot be displayed.".

    That’s ridiculous. How are programmers such as myself supposed to diagnose errors when the error messages are masked?

  95. I reviewed the early release of IE7 and I intend to do a similar follow-up on the final release once the pressure of our own release has let up some. In the mean time, congratulations to the IE7 team on their 2 million downloads in 4 days — or is it

  96. Hooray says:

    Perhaps what is arrogant is thinking that Microsoft, who have the weight of several million angry users to deal with on their backs if they don’t do it properly, are going to be able to cater to you, and that Microsoft don’t agonise over every back-compatability rule they break. Of course they do. Half of the time spent developing these things is spent on making sure that sites still work to some degree. Can they help it if you code blindly? They can’t. I’m really sorry, but you’re going to have to do something about your sites.

    I’m not saying IE 7 doesn’t break at least a few things unnecessarially, but this is the price you get for an update. It’s either that or land with IE 6 for another four years. Would that be your preference?

    And besides which, there is Quirks Mode, kids. Don’t pull each other’s hair out over it.

    @Coder:

    Go into advanced settings. You can turn off the "friendly" (annoying) error pages. I don’t like that either, but I guess it’s more informative for 90% of all people who are not coders.

  97. Brian Mless says:

    Coder wrote: "I hate the non-informative "The webpage cannot be displayed.".

    Turn off friendly error messages you tool! What kind of coder are you!

  98. Andre says:

    Happily I’ve disabled auto update so I won’t get IE7.

    Who needs it? Does it have anything that FireFox does not have?

  99. Nadav says:

    EricLaw: once again, thanks for your help. I managed to locate the plugin to blame: it was the not-most-recent build of Google Toolbar. Installing the latest version from Google solved the problem.

    Best regards,

    Nadav

  100. Albyxx says:

    Has anyone mentioned that IE7 breaks "HP Director" yet?

    Oh, I suppose that’s HP’s fault.

  101. rc says:

    Those who blaim IE with lack of standards support, definitely manifest the lack of knowledge.

    For example, they don’t know that IE supports Ruby Annotations; though only ‘ruby’ and ‘rt’ elements, but alternate browsers don’t support Ruby at all.

    There’s also support for ‘ruby-align’, ‘ruby-overhang’, and ‘ruby-position’ properties from CSS 3 (with some bugs, though).

    IE supports ‘inline-block’ value for ‘display’ property: true support is for few elements only, but some other browsers don’t support ‘inline-block’ at all, again.

    IE handles soft hyphens (U+00AD); characters that are very useful for many languages with long words. Mozilla developers totally and consistently ignore all requests for implementing soft hyphens sinse 1990’s.

    IE 7 supports numerous attribute selectors from CSS 3: [|=], [^=], [*=], [$=], [~=]; some other browsers don’t.

    IE supports a lot of other CSS 3 properties, such as: overflow-x, overflow-y; layout-grid, layout-grid-char, layout-grid-line, layout-grid-mode, layout-grid-type; line-break; text-autospace, text-kashida-space, text-justify; word-break.

    So what about standards support?

  102. Raphael Bosshard says:

    Congratulation to the successful release of IE 7! It’s been quite a while since I used IE the last time, but I think I’ll give it a try next time I boot into Windows.

    And as I just read; you’ve actually sent the Firefox developers a cake? That’s an awesome gesture! I’d love to see more of this new side of Microsoft.

  103. Snarky says:

    @Hooray: You think 10% of people are coders?

  104. ieblog says:

    @Talishte

    IE Spell is a free spell check add-on that can be found on ieaddons.com

    http://www.ieaddons.com/AddOn.aspx?cid=2&scid=68&aid=b70c20ef-1b9e-437d-84f8-e7bc9941c690

  105. Adam says:

    Limited User account

    I am running Internet Explorer 7 on Limited Account. When using IE7 on Limited Account some website don’t run without administrator priveleges. is this true or false. Also am I still protected by the phishing filter when using this limited account?

  106. Steve says:

    @Simon,… nice bug!… yeah, that’s certainly undesired…

    did you try a W3C method to swap them? does it have the same issues?

  107. Jeremy says:

    Blame Microsoft’s arrogance on your ignorance. We’re all agreed on the obvious fact that IE7 was a long time coming? Seems to me people had plenty of time to ensure their websites are standards compliant.

    As for HP Director etc not working, Microsoft is the platform developer, they define the rules (because it’s their OS), not the other way around people!!!

    I’m surprised you people aren’t complaining about how MS windows 3.0 won’t install on a new Core Duo.

    If IE7’s pros out weigh the cons, making YOUR CUSTOMERS browse safer, without having their credit cards hacked by phishing sites, then IE7 may encourage more growth in eCommerce.

    (There is some real second rate IT firms out there from what I’m reading here!)

  108. Jeremy says:

    @andre

    You happily turned off auto-updates? I guess you like your Windows like your Cheese – full of holes.

  109. Crash and Burn... says:

    http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/blogspotting/archives/2006/10/web_30.html?campaign_id=rss_blog_blogspotting

    This page dies horribly.

    (note I have Spybot set up to block tracking cookies if that makes any difference)

  110. Aedrin says:

    Validation of http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/blogspotting/archives/2006/10/web_30.html?campaign_id=rss_blog_blogspotting:

    "Sorry, I am unable to validate this document because on line 493  it contained one or more bytes that I cannot interpret as utf-8  (in other words, the bytes found are not valid values in the specified Character Encoding). Please check both the content of the file and the character encoding indication."

  111. Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis says:

    @rc: Thanks for the interesting list. I was flailing around earlier in the thread for any examples of IE7 actually supporting standards other browsers don’t, so it’s a pity your claims are somewhat misleading.

    1.  "IE supports Ruby Annotations; though only ‘ruby’ and ‘rt’ elements, but alternate browsers don’t support Ruby at all."

    As far as I can tell, this is doubly false. IE doesn’t support Ruby Annotations because it doesn’t support application/xhtml+xml. Ruby Annotations only exist as an XHTML module:

    http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-ruby-20010531/

    Copying Ruby Annotations into text/html is just supporting more non-standard tag soup.

    Unlike IE, Amaya not only implements Ruby Annotations, but does so as an XHTML Module.

    2. "IE supports ‘inline-block’ value for ‘display’ property: true support is for few elements only, but some other browsers don’t support ‘inline-block’ at all, again."

    This is true, but not overly impressive. Gecko notoriously doesn’t support inline-block:

    bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9458

    But Opera and KHTML do support inline-block and, unlike IE, their support isn’t implemented to elements that are naturally inline.

    3. "IE handles soft hyphens (U+00AD); characters that are very useful for many languages with long words. Mozilla developers totally and consistently ignore all requests for implementing soft hyphens sinse 1990’s."

    Opera, KHTML, and WebKit developers have also implemented soft hyphens. It’s true that Mozilla still does not support soft hyphens. But it is not fair to claim that Mozilla developers "ignore" requests to implement soft hyphens. They have long been open to contributions that patch support in Gecko, and want to implement them as part of a broader rewrite of how line breaks are handled for Firefox 3:

    bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9101

    4. "IE 7 supports numerous attribute selectors from CSS 3: [|=], [^=], [*=], [$=], [~=]; some other browsers don’t."

    CSS 3 is *not* a standard; it is a series of *drafts* subject to change. In any case, please be more specific about *which* "other browsers" you are talking about. Not Opera or Firefox, apparently:

    http://www.webdevout.net/browser_support_css.php#css2selectors

    http://www.webdevout.net/browser_support_css.php#css3selectors

    "So what about standards support?"

    What, you need a list? Off the top of my head, how about application/xhtml+xml, display: table-* options and content generation from CSS, the Q element, SVG, and data:url? All of these are finished specifications and all are workably (albeit not always perfectly) implemented in Gecko, KHTML, Opera, and WebKit.

  112. Simon says:

    @Steve – Thanks for the reply.

    My work around for the moment is to set the width to a fixed number of pixels.

    We discovered the problem in a popup dialog we have that lets the user select from a list of available fields, you know the kind of thing, one select box with the available list, some add, remove, move up, move down buttons in the middle and the selected list on the right.

    The move up and move down buttons use the swapNode() method.

    The layout is 45%,10%,45% for the available list, buttons and selected list.

    So for the moment I’ve just fixed the size on the selected list, it looks ok, as long as the user doesn’t resize the dialog box, then it starts to look ‘off’.

    One interesting feature of the bug is that the rate at which the width decreases is inversely proportional to the percentage it is given. 10% disappears really quick, 100% more slowly.

    I haven’t tried replacing swapNode() with anything else yet. I might give it a go today, but now that I’ve got a workaround (kind of) its not high on my list of things to do.

  113. Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis says:

    Oops. "But Opera and KHTML do support inline-block and, unlike IE, their support isn’t implemented to elements that are naturally inline" should have read "But Opera and KHTML do support inline-block and, unlike IE, their support isn’t *limited* to elements that are naturally inline".

  114. Sam says:

    do you think you could make it so that if you click on a tab, the previously viewed tab comes to the front?  it’s a habit that i’ve gotten from the taskbar, since it works similarly.  clicking on the task that’s already on top will minimize it.  i just think it would make browsing easier, allowing a user to make a quick check on a tab by clicking on its tab twice.

  115. Sascha Lopez says:

    Finally Symantec did something right. iecrash.com loads a trojan onto your system through internet explorer. It will also happen with IE7 so I reccomend not visiting that link. I warned you all. It was Symantec corp edition that found this not Nod32 suprisingly…

  116. Sascha Lopez says:

    Oh and by the way, IE7 is great, It’s like Firefox powered by Microsoft 😉

  117. Matt says:

    Why hasn’t the bug with loading a script in XHTML been fixed yet? (see http://weakmind.org/iebug.html).

    I wanted to report the bug through connect, but when I go, sign in, and look at the available programs IE isn’t listed anywhere.

  118. Hello IE dev. team people,

    It would be improper and incorrect for me for not thanking you for your indisputable efforts spent into fixing known, reproducible and reported bugs. So, thank you!

    But now, I wish you could/would concentrate on fixing other known, reproducible and reported bugs.

    http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/MSIE7Bugs/

    lists possibly hundreds of bugs.

    In particular, the ones regarding CSS1 testsuite:

    Float bug in IE 7 (CSS 1 Test Suite: 4.1.4)

    http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/MSIE7Bugs/FloatBugIE7.html

    Another float bug in IE 7 (CSS 1 Test Suite: 5.5.25b)

    http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/MSIE7Bugs/AnotherFloatBugIE7.html

    Background-color inherit (CSS 1 Test Suite: 7.1)

    http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/MSIE7Bugs/BackgroundColorInherit.html

    Some other worst bugs are:

    http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/MSIE7Bugs/TableCellWidth100pc.html

    NS 6.2, NS 7.0, NS 7.2, Seamonkey 1.x, K-meleon 1.0.2, Firefox 1.x, Firefox 2.0, Safari 2.0, Opera 9.01, Konqueror 3.5.4, Galeon 2.0.1 all pass this test.

    http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/MSIE7Bugs/LeftAutoMarginCollapsingBugInIE7.html

    Also passed by almost all other browsers.

    Gérard Talbot

  119. Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis says:

    @Matt:

    "I wanted to report the bug through connect, but when I go, sign in, and look at the available programs IE isn’t listed anywhere."

    In a utterly bizarre and unhelpful move, Microsoft have temporarily closed the connect.microsoft.com/ie site.

    As for how we’re supposed to report bugs now, well there’s a phone number and a newsgroup:

    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/support/default.mspx#ie7Support

  120. duke3d says:

    salut

    J’ai une simple question, y’ aura t il un portable IE7 (sur usb) comme portable FIREFOX 2.0 .

    merci, et a+

  121. duke3d says:

    oups !!!

    J’ai une simple question…portable FIREFOX 2.0 ?

  122. Can we get a more detailed release timeline please?

    So far all we have is in the next few weeks, and IT folks should get their blockers in place by Nov. 1.

    For those who would like to welcome IE7 users to their sites, it would be nice to know when the flood will start.

    Thanks.

  123. WilliamX says:

    Interesting, I updated to this version three days ago, but never used it. AND, it breaks some cleartype font effects of my gtalk themes.

    How can I give the congratulations to you guys?

  124. Omar A.Perez says:

    http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6656808-1.html?tag=lnav

    another unprofessional work, Firefox owns IE, give me the IE uninstaller, for god’s sake please…

  125. Fduch says:

    when I try to save the webpage you posted ( http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6656808-3.html?tag=btn ) as .mht I get message that I have insufficient memoru to save it. But I have 2 gigs of RAM! What’s that?

  126. EricLaw [MSFT] says:

    @Sascha Lopez: IE7 does not appear to be vulnerable to anything at iecrash.com.

    The site doesn’t appear to do anything other than say "You still here? :-)" after throwing script error "Interface not supported".  

  127. Anson says:

    @Simon & Steve:

    I tried using the W3C methods to swap them, but it still resulted in the same effect.  In fact, if I placed alerts between statements, it would actually cause the effect to happen twice: once after replaceChild() and again after insertBefore().  But if they were ran without interruption, the effect would only appear once for that iteration.

    [code]

    function swapNode2(obj, node) {

    var nextSibling = obj.nextSibling;

    var parentNode = obj.parentNode;

    node.parentNode.replaceChild(obj, node);

    parentNode.insertBefore(node, nextSibling);  

    }

    [/code]

    And I think I may have narrowed down the description of the issue more finely.  It appears that when using the node manipulation methods of the SELECT element, it doesn’t take into account the border width and scrollbar width when redrawing the element.  The offsetWidth seems to be set to the previous clientWidth or scrollWidth.  

    Very weird indeed, and I hope they are able to find other bugs of this nature and release a fix for them soon.

    On 10/25/06 @ 19:38, Simon wrote:

    > @Steve – Thanks for the reply.

    >

    > My work around for the moment is to set the width to a fixed number of pixels.

    >

    > We discovered the problem in a popup dialog we have that lets the user select from a list of available fields, you know the kind of thing, one select box with the available list, some add, remove, move up, move down buttons in the middle and the selected list on the right.

    >

    > The move up and move down buttons use the swapNode() method.

    >

    > The layout is 45%,10%,45% for the available list, buttons and selected list.

    >

    > So for the moment I’ve just fixed the size on the selected list, it looks ok, as long as the user doesn’t resize the dialog box, then it starts to look ‘off’.

    >

    > One interesting feature of the bug is that the rate at which the width decreases is inversely proportional to the percentage it is given. 10% disappears really quick, 100% more slowly.

    >

    > I haven’t tried replacing swapNode() with anything else yet. I might give it a go today, but now that I’ve got a workaround (kind of) its not high on my list of things to do.

  128. FactChecker says:

    Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis: The Data:url specification is finished?  According to the RFC folks, it’s still just a proposal, and has been for quite a while now.

    http://rfc.net/std1.html

    So, does that make those who implement it subject to derision for supporting "tag soup"?

  129. @Harry and Mike Williams

    Can you contact us through the IEBlog contact form with the IP addresses that you are running IE from?

    You can tell what IP address a server on the Internet (like the runoncepage) thinks you have by going to a site like:

    http://ip-address.domaintools.com/

    Thanks,

    Sean

  130. moonwalker says:

    My program is not going to work now that you guys took out the browser status bar messaging. Nice that you guys help the big guys like Mcafee and Symantec when they have problems with their programs and security settings…but what about the little guy?

    I built a full blown VB application over the last 4 years using the browser control to display the interface and now it doesn’t work because window.status can no longer be changed via javascript. window.status was a great way to generating events in my program when users clicked inside the interface drawn in the browser control. I tried changing it to use location.href and pass variables on the url…to bad I get overflow messages and when it does work it is allot slower than watching the status text change event of the browser control.

    Please fix it so "Allow status bar updates via script" is enabled by default so that all my hard work can live on with IE7.

  131. Tom says:

    You’re one developer. There is no way on earth that you’re going to get that feature built back in to IE7.

    The long and the short of it is – you’re going to have to re-think how your app works and update it. As has already been said, technology changes, software changes. The world doesn’t (and can’t) revolve around your app.

    IMO, maintenance/updates like this are just par for the course of being a developer.

  132. Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis says:

    @FactChecker: Thank you kindly for the correction on Data URLs; consider it struck from my off-the-cuff list. It remains a Proposed Standard Protocol, so it is not an example of finished specifications supported by alternate browsers. I wonder what happened to it — are they waiting for IE?

    "So, does that make those who implement it subject to derision for supporting ‘tag soup’?"

    Certainly not (especially as it doesn’t involve tags). I stand by my statement about IE and Ruby Annotations:

    "Copying Ruby Annotations into text/html is just supporting more non-standard tag soup."

    It is not remotely analogous to the implementation of a proposed standard like data URLs. The problem here is precisely that Internet Explorer *hasn’t* implemented a standard or even a proposed standard, so Ruby Annotations should *not* be cited as an example of IE implementing a standard.

    Moreover, unlike implementing a proposed standard like data URLs or CSS 3, expanding tag soup arbitrarily in this way is generally counter-productive. Granted no specification defines how text/html documents that do not conform to standards should be treated and HTML browsers should offer support for HTML variants:

    "Due to the long and distributed development of HTML, current practice on the Internet includes a wide variety of HTML variants. Implementors of text/html interpreters must be prepared to be ‘bug-compatible’ with popular browsers in order to work with many HTML documents available the Internet."

    http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2854.txt

    But that is no licence to create yet more untameable variation, especially as such novelties may conflict with future standards and make content uninterpretable without that particular browser. Internet Explorer should be encouraging authors to create standards-based content that can be understood by as wide an audience as possible, will work across compliant browsers, and will stand the test of time when IE and Firefox are history.

    Implementing data URL would be more analogous to supporting CSS 3. Let’s look at how we should treat an IETF Proposed Standard:

    "Implementors should treat Proposed Standards as immature specifications.  It is desirable to implement them in order to gain experience and to validate, test, and clarify the specification. However, since the content of Proposed Standards may be changed if problems are found or better solutions are identified, deploying implementations of such standards into a disruption-sensitive environment is not recommended."

    http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt

    IE implementing CSS 3 is an example of IE helping to create a standard in a similar fashion, and it is to be applauded. But it is *not* the same as implementing a standard. As the Last Call for CSS 3 Selectors stresses:

    "This is still a draft document and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite a W3C Working Draft as other than ‘work in progress’."

    http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-css3-selectors-20051215/

  133. Roboto says:

    Tom is correct. The Many Outweigh the Few.

    Congratulations IE7 Team on good launch!

    Furthermore, desk reading your code provides an excellent opportunity for commenting.

    .. four our years to develop a VB app for a web browser.. impressive. :) *hhhhh khhhhh* most impressive.

  134. Albyxx says:

    @ Jeremy

    Regards IE7 breaking HP Director I didn’t know that IE7 is a part of the OS.

    I thought it was a browser, stupid me.

    But it is funny though that Director worked fine with IE6.

  135. Anson says:

    @moonwalker

    "I built a full blown VB application over the last 4 years using the browser control to display the interface and now it doesn’t work because window.status can no longer be changed via javascript. window.status was a great way to generating events in my program when users clicked inside the interface drawn in the browser control. I tried changing it to use location.href and pass variables on the url…to bad I get overflow messages and when it does work it is allot slower than watching the status text change event of the browser control."

    It appears that the behavior has been modified so that the link’s href is displayed in the status bar AFTER calling the onmouseover event for the element.  So the event still takes place and is updated, but the browser applies its own onmouseover event for A tags to update the status bar last.  But this is the only time the browser touches the status bar.  Once your mouse is already within the dimensions of the element, other events are free to alter the window.status property.  I tried using onmousemove and onmouse click, and they successfully were able to alter the status bar text.

    I know it’s not the most pleasant way to handle it, but it does seem like something that can be worked around, again.

  136. Gonzalo says:

    Hola, mi nombre es Gonzalo y queria comentarles algo que empece a ver en Internet que me parecio muy interesante.

    La educacion a distancia empezo a ser el emblema de estudio en muchos paises de lationamerica. Calculan que es una de las principales fuentes del comercio electronico.

    Yo hace un poco, hice unos cursos en estos dos sites muy interesantes:

    http://www.designanimation.com.ar

    http://www.portuguesonline.com

    Saludos!

  137. Aedrin says:

    "I hope you have a low budget or restrictions which stops IE7 from becoming a browser with potential"

    Yeah, Microsoft will stop production on a browser used by 85%+ of the US, that is used in hundreds of other applications.

    The problem with CSS3 is that it is slowing down progress. The recommendation is becoming the issue.

    IE should’ve decided not to implement features because a bunch of people can’t decide on whether it should be X or Y? W3C is losing its focus and it is hurting everyone.

    They started out with the right idea, but now they’ve lost it.

  138. Mike says:

    Wow. I installed today on XP sp2, and I can safely say I’ve never seen features like it in any other browser.

    1. Using either of the online OR Power Toy for XP ClearType tools, I can’t switch cleartype off, so now ALL html pages, including Outlook html mails are headache inducing. Noone else has ever included such an *authoritative* feature, nor one that has made me look away from the screen so often. At least it’s resting my focal point outwards regularly.

    2. In case I forget to close IE7, it often closes itself. This is very handy for freeing up extra memory. Of course, it doesn;t ask what tabs I had open, so they disappear, much like losing an earlier version of IE, except they don’t hang as often.

    As a bonus, it also "hides" some other system tray icons, so I have to Alt-Tab to check they’re still there, since I can no longer click on them. Hide and Seek!

    3. IE7 also regularly stress tests my CPU. Attempting to close it returns one of three options. One, it hangs, immediately throwing CPU to 100% until I manage to kill the iexplore process. Two, it asks me if I want to reopen these tabs next time, before hanging and runnign CPU to 100%. Considerate. And three – very rarely but JUST often enough to have the same addicive affect as a slot machine payout to a gambling addict – it occasioanlly shuts down neatly like a normal app.

    There’s more, but I’m typing this through a web page viewed in IE7, so it’s killing me. And I work in a large enterprise 95% Windows environment, so I can’t run firefox. And recommendatiosn on how easy it is to migrate back to IE6 guys?

    thanks!

    Mike

  139. Steve says:

    Regarding the select option swapping bug in IE7, there is an alternative that will work.

    if you change (depending on your need), the .text (and/or) .value of the options in question, the select list will NOT start shrinking.

    here’s the revised code.  Click the second button to see it work, click the first button to see it fail in IE7.

    I would opt for the second option anyway, as the first will not work in any other browser anyway, and we should all be striving for standards! 😉

    —revised code—

    <html>

    <script language="javascript">

    function doClick(){

    s.options[4].swapNode(s.options[3]);

    }

    function doClickW3C(){

    var sel = document.getElementById(‘s’);

    var option3txt = sel.options[3].text;

    var option3val = sel.options[3].value;

    var option4txt = sel.options[4].text;

    var option4val = sel.options[4].value;

    sel.options[3].value = option4val;

    sel.options[3].text = option4txt;

    sel.options[4].value = option3val;

    sel.options[4].text = option3txt;

    }

    </script>

    <body>

    <select id="s" size=10 style="width:100%;">

    <option value="a">Option 1</option>

    <option value="b">Option 2</option>

    <option value="c">Option 3</option>

    <option value="d">Option 4 Here</option>

    <option value="e">Option 5 There</option>

    <option value="f">Option 6</option>

    <option value="g">Option 7</option>

    <option value="h">Option 8</option>

    <option value="i">Option 9</option>

    <option value="j">Option 10</option>

    <option value="k">Option 11</option>

    <option value="l">Option 12</option>

    </select>

    <br/>

    <button onClick="doClick()">Click Me</button>

    <br/>

    <button onclick="doClickW3C();">W3C Click Me</button>

    </body>

    </html>

    —revised code—

  140. Tino Zijdel says:

    @FactChecker: isn’t it true that most proposals, working drafts and RFC’s in their final stages are actually calls for implementation? Without implementations these will never become standards. While MS is holding off the boat when saying that something is not a standard yet they are actually just postponing it from becoming a standard.

  141. WebNews says:

    En quelques jours, la nouvelle version d’IE, la version 7 finale, tant attendue, a été télechargées plus de 3 millions de fois! Ce nombre est cependant à prendre avec recul car il inclut les téléchargements intentionnels du navigateur. Malgré tout, o..

  142. Philip says:

    Your search on the IE7 addons page needs fixing.

    If I do an advanced search, and search for FREE addons, for IE7, it only returns 2 results.

    That search page is no where near user friendly.  I would recommend giving it some attention before November rolls around.

  143. Aedrin says:

    "@FactChecker: isn’t it true that most proposals, working drafts and RFC’s in their final stages are actually calls for implementation?"

    So IE’s implementation of CSS3 features is actually a good thing?

    @Mike:

    I installed it without a hitch. My Windows cleartype setting remained the same, my system tray didn’t change, it never closes on its own, and I have no CPU/Memory problems running IE7.

    So does the problem lie with IE7, or perhaps the user?

    "And I work in a large enterprise 95% Windows environment, so I can’t run firefox"

    So you can download and install IE7, but not FireFox? (IE7 hasn’t been distributed through AU yet)

  144. ieblog says:

    @Philip

    Using advanced search, select freeware from the drop down leaving the keywords blank and then search. You should get a list of free Add-ons.

  145. rc says:

    @ Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis

    "IE doesn’t support Ruby Annotations because it doesn’t support application/xhtml+xml. Ruby Annotations only exist as an XHTML module:"

    Ruby Annotations don’t relate to application/xhtml+xml. XHTML documents may be served as ‘text/html’, there’s no restrictions; see http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/xhtml-media-types.html. (Pay attention on the colorful table there.) Some ignoramus have claimed that XHTML 1.1 must be served as ‘application/xhtml+xml’, and hordes of other ignorami repeat after him. :-(

  146. Tim Barton says:

    I noticed that when a window is popup that the address bar is placed at the top of the window.  I understand why Microsoft added this feature but Microsoft should have added a way to disable this feature for windows that launch from within an web application with the same URL.

    This is causing me problem because I have controls (RadControls) I use that launch a window for input from the user and since the URL shows information, the user can easily manipulate the URL or see information about that I didn’t want the user to see.

    You should be able to control this in a control web site as long the popup URL is the same as the URL of the site that launched it.  

  147. EricLaw [MSFT] says:

    @Tim Barton: The user can see and manipulate the URL in many other ways.  For instance, he or she could use Fiddler to monitor all traffic and rewrite the URLs.  Or they could right-click on the page and get the URL via Properties, or any of a million other tricks.

    If your design relies on the user being unable to manipulate the URL, it is not secure.

  148. moonwalker says:

    RE: four our years to develop a VB app for a web browser.. impressive. :)

    It is not a web browser. The browser control is used to display and control an offline graphical user interface! My app builds HTML dynamically based on database info. It displays the info in the browser control but never connects to the net. Clicking and dragging elements in the dynamically created "web page" gui calls window.status via javascript and the status text change event executes the correct function. It is a damn good alternatives to displaying data in the old fashion/over used/boring old data grid. You have total freedom for how the data is displayed.

    RE: it appears that the behavior has been modified so that the link’s href is displayed in the status bar AFTER calling the onmouseover event for the element.  So the event still takes place and is updated, but the browser applies its own onmouseover event for A tags to update the status bar last.

    That is what it should do! However, it no longer allows updates to window.status via javascript unless the default security option is hunted down and manually changed by the user. Why microsoft can’t just hide javascript window.status changes from the visible bar and yet make them still actually hit the status text change event has never been explained. Supposedly, Microsoft took out javascript window.status changes in order to prevent phishing/address spoofing. It seems to me that this could be built around the display in the status bar and does not need to restrict the actual messaging ability. Microsoft could just add an optional flag to the status text change function to allow programmers to make the javascript window.status events pass.

    Please no more comments saying that if you are not a huge company microsoft doesn’t care. Surely I can not be the only person to use the browser control to build a program gui that is not for internet web browsing. To take out window.status functionality seem unnecessary to fight phishing. Just make the browser only SHOW the browser status text when it is a URL if you want…but don’t make it unable to receive window.status messages in the status text change event. That is the opposite of evolution.

  149. EricLaw [MSFT] says:

    @Moonwalker: Why not use the interface (window.external) which was specifically built for the browser control to communicate to its parent container?

    http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/a0746166.aspx

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/01/04/web/

  150. Henry says:

    Quesion regarding "CSS screen vs. print."

    I need to know, if the browser is displaying "on screen" for the user, or is "on print preview", from JavaScript.

    I thought about making a bogus div, with an ID, that only renders at print time, then check the dimensions of that object… but I actually need to know, before the <body> tag even starts rendering.

    Any insight as to what I can do here?

    Thanks,

    Henry

  151. Henry says:

    Never mind, just realized that my JavaScript doesn’t get executed when trying to do a print preview.

    Thus it doesn’t matter.

    That said, for anyone wanting to know if they are in print preview or not, using:

    window.onbeforeprint = function(){

     window.inPrintPreview = true;

    }

    will set this flag, just before printing, and or you can call whatever you want.

  152. moonwalker says:

    Eric,

    Thank you for your response. I did not know about that methodology. The reason I am reluctant to use it is because my app is written in VB6 and it says "Unfortunately, you can’t simply implement this interface in Visual Basic. You need a C++ DLL as an intermediary.". Where can I get this DLL?

    Also, I assume window.external.foo = "thismessage"; would not work, which means that I would have to manually change each of the thousands of window.status = "message"’s (one at a time) to include the necessary ( ) which means I can not use find and replace to update all the window.status="x"’s to external.foo("x").

    What would be the sub/function in VB6 that would receive all the external.foo messages? Also, this method would be backward compatible with IE6 right? Thanks for your help.

  153. Aedrin says:

    "It is a damn good alternative"

    It just shows why there are all these complaints about "broken" or "missing functionality". People keep inventing their own methods instead of the recommended methods.

    CSS hacks are a similar problem, they belong in the same category as browser sniffing through the UA string.

  154. Neil says:

    I cannot believe what a clone IE7 is!  You are so proud of adding so many "new" features that Firefox has had for a long time.

    Mozilla ought to sue for plagiarism!

  155. Ivanj says:

    On my popup windows i use in program of mine they show change size icon in the bottom right now.  they did not in version 6.  this helps not my user cause they feel they can change size but they cant! why dos it show size change icon if not can change size?

  156. moonwalker says:

    RE: It just shows why there are all these complaints about "broken" or "missing functionality". People keep inventing their own methods instead of the recommended methods.

    Since when is window.status = and using the status text change event an invention of a new method? I used the simplest/shortest/easiest method available for passing messages…the one called window.status…rather than needing to use a DLL or passing everything on the url where the navigate method quickly chokes on excessive use with cancel = true. It should be easy for ms to make it backwards compatible by adding an optional text2 variable that gets the javascript window.status messages so that programmers can keep using the functionality that was available with 6.0.

    All they would need to do is update it so

    WebBrowser1_StatusTextChange(ByVal Text As String)

    changes to use

    WebBrowser1_StatusTextChange(ByVal Text As String, Optional ByVal Text2 As String)

    Text can ingore window.status javascript messages all it wants. Text2 would always contain the window.status text from javascript.

  157. je.saist says:

    ***

    * No, we won’t have a Win2K version. There were too many things we depend on in newer OS’ to make Win2K a pragmatic release.

    ***

    Slight problems with this statement. Win2k SP4 is code-wise identical to WinXp SP1. Not even driver ISV’s like ATi, Nvidia, or Via attempt to fool users into believing that Win2k and WinXp are different Operating Systems.

    Now, how much do I want to bet that the canceled Win2K Service Pack 5 release would have brought Win2k in line with Windows Xp Service Pack 2?

    So, here’s my suggestion. Before you drop the line of B.S. that Win2k and WinXp are different programs, don’t. Get IE7 out the door for Win2k users.

  158. Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis says:

    @rc:

    "XHTML documents may be served as ‘text/html’, there’s no restrictions"

    RFC 2854 for text/html (www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2854.txt) explains that the XHTML 1.0 recommendation "defines a profile of use of XHTML which is compatible with HTML 4.01 and which may also be labeled as text/html." The XHTML 1.0 specification itself states that:

    "XHTML Documents which follow the guidelines set forth in Appendix C, "HTML Compatibility Guidelines" may be labeled with the Internet Media Type ‘text/html’ [RFC2854], as they are compatible with most HTML browsers. Those documents, and any other document conforming to this specification, may also be labeled with the Internet Media Type ‘application/xhtml+xml’ as defined in [RFC3236]. For further information on using media types with XHTML, see the informative note [XHTMLMIME]."

    (www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#media)

    The "informative note" is emphatic that XHTML 1.1 "should not" be served as text/html and "should" be served as application/xhtml+xml. "Should not", the document tells us, should be interpreted as in RFC 2119  (www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1119.txt) : "This phrase … mean[s] that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed before implementing any behavior described with this label." So pay some attention to the "colorful table" yourself.

    XHTML 1.1 and modularized XHTML documents do *not* conform to the XHTML 1.0 specification and therefore should not be sent as text/html, any more than you would send image/gif as image/jpeg.

    Indeed one of the *express purposes* of XHTML 1.1 and modularization was to hasten the replacement of text/html with application/xhtml+xml:

    "With the introduction of the XHTML family of modules and document types, the W3C has helped move the Internet content-development community from the days of malformed, non-standard markup into the well formed, valid world of XML. In XHTML 1.0, this move was moderated by a goal of providing for easy migration of existing, HTML 4 (or earlier) based content to XHTML and XML."

    (www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/introduction.html#s_intro)

    When you serve any XHTML, even XHTML 1.0, as text/html, *no standard* defines how user agents should treat your markup. It’s purely a hack for backwards compatibility, and not a very good one either: hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml .

    No standard sanctions serving XHTML other than 1.0 as text/html, any more than any specification allows for serving audio/mp3 as text/html. Ruby Annotations only exists as a Ruby DTD module for XHTML 1.1: http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC- ruby-20010531/#module . W3C are entirely clear on this point, just look at their test for "proprietary extensions for ruby support in pages coded as XHTML 1.0" (www.w3.org/International/tests/sec-ruby-markup-2.html)

    Ruby markup served as in text/html has no standard, specified semantics and no special suggested rendering, and should therefore be avoided.

    "Some ignoramus have claimed that XHTML 1.1 must be served as ‘application/xhtml+xml’, and hordes of other ignorami repeat after him. :-("

    Can you not be more specific about which ignoramus? Of course, XHTML 1.1 doesn’t "have to be served as application/xhtml+xml. That’s just the *recommended* way to do it. But clearly XHTML 1.1 and modularized XHTML should not be served as text/html.

    Thankfully, the IE Team realize that there is a big difference between text/html and real XHTML: blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/09/15/467901.aspx .

    @Aedrin:

    "CSS hacks are a similar problem, they belong in the same category as browser sniffing through the UA string."

    What category would that be? Web development methods devised to circumvent IE’s limitations, but subsequently broken by new versions of IE?

    This isn’t to say CSS hacks were a good idea in the first place, or that IE was their only target. User-Agent sniffing however is expressly permitted by the HTTP 1.1 specification, not a hack. But it’s been a n especially bad idea ever since IE 1.5 started spoofing Mozilla (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_agent). Unfortunately, by sending deceptive headers like "Accept: */*" and "Accept-Language: en-us", IE continues to necessitate such sniffing if you wish to interpret its headers correctly. (Or you could just send it application/xhtml+xml and refuse it any content that is not in US English, as it requests.)

  159. AC says:

    @je.saist

    "Now, how much do I want to bet that the canceled Win2K Service Pack 5 release would have brought Win2k in line with Windows Xp Service Pack 2?"

    I wouldn’t make that bet. And Win2K and XP are different programs. Also, the minimum is XPSP2 which isn’t even "code-wise identical" to XPSP1. It’s closer to Windows Server 2003 really. They aren’t dropping the BS line, they’re saying they aren’t going to put the work in to make a port to Win2K that wouldn’t match what they have now. Accept it.

  160. Philip says:

    @ieblog

    I tried your suggestion and it did work.  What is still broken, is if you pick IE7, then only 2 show up.

    Either your addons need to be flagged as 6&7 or the search needs to be the inverse. (e.g. searching for IE7, returns all where version != IE6

    Thanks

  161. Vic Berggren says:

    I’d like for the IE Team to talk about how many Error Reports have been generated now that 3M have been downloaded.

    Everytime I deal with 3 or more tabs then its only a matter of time before the browser crashes and the little MS Error Reporting Window launches.

  162. Every CSS I used since I started CSS was using just the "star hack".

    Obviously, if the "star hack" bug was solved AND IE7 was standard compliant, nothing will be updated.

    But… IE7 isn’t standard compliant.

    And so…

  163. k@mb@ says:

    jejeje

    Secunia: Second flaw in Microsoft IE7 browser

    Danish security vendor is reporting a new bug with the browser, a second in less than a week

    Just one week after claiming that users of Microsoft’s Internet Explorer 7 could be at risk to an online attack, Danish security vendor Secunia ApS is reporting a new bug in the browser.

    http://www.codeproject.com/News.aspx?id=1813

  164. Aedrin says:

    "What category would that be? Web development methods devised to circumvent IE’s limitations, but subsequently broken by new versions of IE?"

    Kludge, cheap, temporary? These things are fine while you find a solution. But if you put these in for a production site, then I’m sure you can find a better way.

    "It’s purely a hack for backwards compatibility, and not a very good one either: hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml."

    Don’t mention Hixie. It doesn’t make you look good. Any "developer" who argues that a problem shouldn’t be fixed because ‘it looks ugly’ (in their opinion), even though it makes 100% sense, needs to be reconsidered.

    "Everytime I deal with 3 or more tabs then its only a matter of time before the browser crashes and the little MS Error Reporting Window launches."

    You need more than 32 MB to run Windows XP with IE7?

    "Every CSS I used since I started CSS was using just the "star hack".

    Obviously, if the "star hack" bug was solved AND IE7 was standard compliant, nothing will be updated."

    If you wouldn’t have used the star hack, you wouldn’t have had any problems. What does this tell you about hacks?

  165. theAK says:

    IE7 it’s so unstable that I’m reading this on FF 😀

  166. Tino Zijdel says:

    @Aedrin: "So IE’s implementation of CSS3 features is actually a good thing?"

    Yes, that’s a good thing in itself, but I’d rather see MS fixing their extremely broken layout-model (hasLayout?) and correctly implement some fundamental CSS properties like ‘inherit’ and ‘z-index’.

  167. Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis says:

    @Aedrin

    "But if you put these in for a production site, then I’m sure you can find a better way."

    Remind me, what’s the "better way" to work around IE7’s new deceptive Accept-Language header? And does that "better way" bear any relation to the relevant standards or not?

    "Don’t mention Hixie. It doesn’t make you look good."

    I’m unlikely to be swayed by ad hominem. Were I to judge Ian Hickson’s opinions based purely on who he is, then I’d tend to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who has worked for Mozilla, Opera, and Google, and who, along with a variety of other work on standards within and without the W3C, co-edits the CSS 2.1 specification with which IE has yet to comply: ian.hixie.ch/career/resume.html . But as far as I’m concerned, arguments should stand or fall individually by their use of logic and evidence, not the reputation of their author.

    "Any ‘developer’ who argues that a problem shouldn’t be fixed because ‘it looks ugly’ (in their opinion), even though it makes 100% sense, needs to be reconsidered."

    I’m sorry, but despite reading quite a bit of the controversy around that article I have no idea what you’re talking about here. Perhaps you’d care to elaborate? People should read Hickson’s piece for themselves and make up their own minds, but surely his argument is that XHTML as text/html is dangerously error-prone, not that it’s "ugly"? I’m all for real HTML and real XHTML, but I fail to see how serving outdated markup (XHTML 1.0) that adds no functionality to even more outdated markup (HTML 4.01) with a MIME type that means there is no spec for how user agents should treat it and which relies on serious parsing bugs to work at all "makes 100% sense".

    Hickson’s article is if anything less damning that the vagaries and inconsistencies of the laconic compatibility guidelines themselves. Think it’s hard helping people to write valid HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.1? Well, trying to get people to write XHTML 1.0 that follows the Section C HTML Compatibility Guidelines is even *harder*. But worse yet, it’s largely pointless.

  168. Alpkid says:

    UI ick.  Buttons are spread out every-which-way, inconsistantly designed, and unable to be rearranged into intuitive spots.  Ick.

  169. mo says:

    what’s up with sending the cake to the Firefox developers?

  170. David William Wrixon says:

    I have seen screen shot of IE7 Automatic Updates Live from a reliable source. I suspect it is for updating of the Beta, but if you don’t want IE7, then yes time is getting very short to install blocking software.

  171. Skeptic says:

    "Win2k SP4 is code-wise identical to WinXp SP1"

    You’re a genius!  I took a look and I found out that they made them both with just 1s and 0s!!!!  I checked and the order of the 1s and 0s is a bit different (and the XPSP1 has a lot of extras compared to the old os) but they’re still just 1s and 0s!!!  They could make IE7 for Win2k easy as pie!!!

    *Microsoft* must be the ones that are full of BS here!  Good work!

  172. Mark Daniels says:

    @Vic Berggren: "Everytime I deal with 3 or more tabs then its only a matter of time before the browser crashes and the little MS Error Reporting Window launches."

    Probably buggy plugins.  Try starting with them turned off (start>programs>accessoriez>systemtools>noaddons)

    also google desktop is buggy.  mkae sure you have the latest one.

  173. Mike again says:

    Indeed I can’t access Firefox -were I to download it, the web tech team won’t support it as we work in an MS environment, and the policy is to not mix browser types for support reasons – this way we patch often but patch all.

    I appreciate the ie7 application worked fine for you, but calling the user at fualt when the product doesn’t work isn’t going to win your argument. The fact lies with a buggy product when running on xp sp2, upgraded from ie6 sp2. I’ll be uninstalling it today and rolling back to IE6 – here come the SMS patches all over again! – as I came into work this mornign to find all my IE7 windows had once again closed themselves. I wasn’t even there, so you really can’t blame the user this time – thanks guys – I really look forward to dealing with you on support calls if this is the attitude we’ll get.

    I really can’t disrecommend the product enough based on my experience. I do accept that it runs fine for MS staff – best of luck, what’re you running, pre release Vista or what? – but my xp sp2 experience has been woeful. having said that, I tested on another xp sp2 machine where it worked fine – sadly a machine in use by someone else… Until I can either identify the points fo failure on this XP, or wait till there’s an upgrade to it, I probably won’t put a toe back in the water for a while.

    thansk anyway

  174. Ehsan says:

    You shouldn’t have released it. Not yet. It is full of simple problems that could be easily fixed, but you didn’t even take a look at the comments on this blog.

    Every time I want to change tabs, I’m challenged by the UI. It always hangs for a while(5 to 15 seconds.)

    When it first starts up, since I have added those registry keys to actually SEE the menu bar on top, I have to watch the UI elements moving up and down, making some gymnastic movements, till they get still at the end.

    Partly because I have also removed those new buttons on the right, but at first when IE starts up, I see all of the buttons there, and after those movements, they disapear. I wanted to remove them all, but if I did, they would go back right where they were before after I restarted IE, so I just kept the RSS Feed button visible. Funny isn’t it?!

    I remember, as a VB programmer, I read your book titled "Desktop Applications for VB6" and in that book, there was a complete chapter about the UI. I learnt how to make good UI that gives the user that familiar feeling of "Reliability." Now with IE7, and some close friend like Windows Defender Beta2, those teachings are gone.

    I won’t comment about Windows Defenter, since after all the commenting for IE, I learnt that there would be no effect.

    Sorry fellows. Although I’ve always been an MS fan, if you keep it this way, I’ll give up.

    At the moment I’m considering moving to Firefox 2.0 ’cause it looked very reliable.

    Hope you change your course in future. This won’t get you where you were headed before.

  175. Ehsan says:

    Ah, I forgot to mention that my friend installed IE7 on his Compaq notebook, and now once in a while he gets weird blue screen crashes. He found out it was IE’s fault after he reinstalled his Windows XP SP2 3 times!

    It seems to me like IE7 actually ATTACKED the streets!

  176. Mike One Last Time says:

    One last oddity – browsing football365 there to see how many mis-picks I’ve made this weeek on fantasy football, and mousewheel-clicking to open in a new tab stopped working. I right-clicked and selected Open in new tab, which then opened it in my existing and only tab…

    Right clicking to cut and paste properties into a blank tab failed, as it was a javascript link. D’oh!

    It’s working again now though.

    If nothing else, this page will be a good debug source for the next release. I’ve sent on any end tasked ‘Send Error Message’ wndows i could, if that is of any help

  177. Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis says:

    @Mike and Ehsan and others uninstalling IE7

    I’m sorry you’ve had a bad experience upgrading to a newer version of your preferred browser. My *gut* feeling is that in most cases this will be a symptom of more general problems on your system rather than a product of bugs in IE7. You’d probably need to give a lot more detail about your system configuration for anyone to help you though. Here’s where to go for support:

    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/support/default.mspx#ie7Support

    But if IE7 really doesn’t work out for you, may I encourage you to try out the other current browsers equipped to deal with the dangers and potential of the modern internet, rather than soldiering on with an insecure, obsolete IE6:

    Firefox 2.0: built-in MathML and extensions for just about everything (XForms? IRC? social bookmarking? you name it)

    Opera 9.02: built-in IRC client and newsreader

    SeaMonkey Application Suite 1.0.5: includes webpage editor and newsgroup, email, and IRC clients

    Netscape Browser 8.1.2: swap at will between IE’s engine for IE-only sites and Firefox’s engine for modern sites

    Flock 0.7.6: designed for bloggers

    All these browsers support SVG, the modern vector graphics for the web. All these browsers have *generally* better support for HTML and CSS than even IE7. All of these browsers support application/xhtml+xml, intended as the primary content type for future web content.

    All of these browsers support tabbed browsing, but if you don’t like tabbed browsing it’s easy to turn off (e.g. in Firefox, select Tools, Options, Tabs and "New pages should be opened in … a new window"). Firefox and Opera have extremely active community support (the Opera and Mozilla forums, plus irc.opera.com and irc.mozilla.org) if you run into any difficulties. All the browser UIs are sui generis, but in general the Firefox 2.0 and Opera UIs are closer to the Windows norm than IE7, which may appeal to those of you freaked by IE7 idiosyncrasies like the disappearance of the menu. You might check out the "IE6XP Native" skin for Opera:

    my.opera.com/community/customize/comments.dml?id=747 .

    Unlike IE7, none of these browsers overwrite IE6. But if you’re hesitant about installing another browser on a fragile system, you could run one of the USB versions:

    http://www.opera-usb.com/operausben.htm

    portableapps.com/apps/internet/firefox_portable

    I wish you happy browsing, whether on IE7 or not :)

  178. `Mike says:

    "Win2k SP4 is code-wise identical to WinXp SP1"

    You’re a genius!  I took a look and I found out that they made them both with just 1s and 0s!!!!  I checked and the order of the 1s and 0s is a bit different (and the XPSP1 has a lot of extras compared to the old os) but they’re still just 1s and 0s!!!  They could make IE7 for Win2k easy as pie!!!

    *Microsoft* must be the ones that are full of BS here!  Good work!

    ——————————–

    Comedy gold! ;D

    i actually did laugh at loud at that

  179. Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis says:

    @Mike

    "If nothing else, this page will be a good debug source for the next release."

    Not really. That site is broken: its code cannot even be validated:

    validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.football365.com%2F

    See my explanation here for why this matters:

    http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/10/19/be-ready-for-automatic-update-distribution-of-ie7-by-november-1.aspx#848849

    And my explanation here for how you can check pages’ validity for yourself:

    http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/10/19/be-ready-for-automatic-update-distribution-of-ie7-by-november-1.aspx#867936

  180. Tom says:

    @Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis

    Objective humility! To be applauded. Fantastic attitude.

    I personally have almost totally ditched Firefox 1.x and 2.x for IE7 now – I can’t fault it and have been using it for months. I originally switched to Firefox from IE6 because of security fears and rendering experience.

    I’ll be rolling it out over WSUS here as soon as it’s available.

    Each to their own, of course. Sometimes I "feel" like using one or the other – and I (like everyone else) have the choice to do so ad-hoc.

    Too many people are evangelical about browsers particularly, and software in general.

  181. Don says:

    This new IE7 does not have a convenient tab to initate your e-mail, IE6 had one.

  182. Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis says:

    (I’ve stripped off the http:// from the beginning of links, because otherwise the spam guard dog here would have this post for breakfast.)

    @Mike

    Just to try and be a little bit more helpful…

    Since it is a broken site, the proper venue for complaints about football365 not working in IE7 is therefore not here, but the football365 contact form:

    http://www.football365.com/contact_us/

    I suggest you send them an email including the following:

    a) Why you like the site (sugarcoat the pill).

    b) A description of your particular experience.

    c) Details of your system configuration (Windows version, IE version, installed plugins and installed add-ons).

    d) Point out that they cannot expect their site to work properly when it is invalid:

    validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.football365.com%2F

    e) Link to this blog post about getting your sites ready for IE7:

    blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/10/06/IE7-Is-Coming-This-Month_2E002E002E00_Are-you-Ready_3F00_.aspx

    f) Link to the "viewable with any browser" campaign:

    http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/

    g) You’d be surprise how many developers seem to rely on second-rate rehashes like MSDN and W3Schools as documentation, so it’s always worth linking to the key specifications that web content is supposed to adhere to:

    http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/ (for accessibility)

    http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/ (for markup)

    http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/ (for styling)

    http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-262.htm (for scripting generally)

    http://www.w3.org/DOM/DOMTR (for DHTML in particular)

    h) You could also link to some best practice guides:

    http://www.sitepoint.com/article/javascript-from-scratch (Quality JavaScript from Scratch)

    joeclark.org/book/ (Building Accessible Websites)

    http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/code/public_rnib008789.hcsp (RNIB’s Web Access Centre)

    http://www.adobe.com/accessibility/ (how to make Flash accessible)

  183. Omar says:

    If I open an Excel spreadsheet, in IE7, when I right click on the Excel tab at the bottom, and choose to "Add a new tab" (or anything for that matter), the current IE7 window loses all focus. (gets sent to the bottom of the window stack)

    needless to say, this ‘feature’ is not desired.

  184. Aedrin says:

    "I’m sorry, but despite reading quite a bit of the controversy around that article I have no idea what you’re talking about here."

    I was referring to the time that Ian Hixie decided a feature in FireFox should not be implemented because it was ‘ugly’, even though there were numerous requests for it. I wasn’t referring to the article, because I hadn’t read it. I’ve seen all the propaganda regarding to use or not to use XHTML, and no one seems to have a valid point.

    I just scanned his introduction, and it seems my point is still correct.

    "Not really. That site is broken: its code cannot even be validated:"

    One warning regarding using validation. A site may invalidate and still work fine. A site is not going to break because there is no alt property on an image. It’s just one of those mixed interests that slipped into the "standard". (An XHTML/HTML standard should not be advocating accessibility features, there are seperate standards for that)

  185. Serious Sam says:

    Hi again guys,

    Downloaded the final version when it was first released and although there isn’t too much difference between this and the RC1 (which is pretty much what you said), I still liked it.  However, I think I’ve just ran into a couple of problems.  The first revolves around the security certificates, in that whenever I’ve visited a ‘secure’ part of a site, e.g. a sign in/up page (and yes we are talking about the Yahoo’s, Googles and MSN/Hotmail’s here – tested it on all of them), it always seems to return the ‘block page’, telling me that there’s been an error with the certificate.

    Now, I’m not saying I that couldn’t simply just skip this message, but it has made me a little nervous, even though I know I’m on the right sites, since I entered them into the address bar myself.

    Is anyone aware of what could be causing this issue, as I’m starting to get just a little irritated at being blocked on literally every secure page I come across.

    Additionally, I’ve also encountered a problem whenever I perform a search on Yahoo (and as far as I can tell this seems to be limited to the UK site – checked out the US version and it didn’t seem to happen there).  The problem is that while the homepage seems to load up all fine and dandy, whenever I hit the search button to find what I’m looking for, it’ll perform the search, but bring the info bar at the top of the page saying: ‘to help protect your security Internet Explorer has blocked this website from displaying content with security certificate errors  click here for options’.  Now, not being funny, but unless I’ve completely missed the meaning of this message (and that is a distinct possibility, lol), I didn’t think that a basic web search would have had anything to do with security certificates, so I’m fairly confused all round here.

    Please help if you can, thanks.

  186. EricLaw [MSFT] says:

    I suspect you’ll find that the problem is hinted at in the "More information" on the error pages.  I bet you’re typing, e.g. https://google.com/adsense and you’re seeing an error because they haven’t configured the site correctly to return a certificate for "google.com" and instead are returning the certificate for "www.google.com".  The HTTPS specification calls for treating this as a security error.  

    If you are typing the "www", please send me some of the exact URLs where you hit this problem.

    (As for why you may see this on a plain HTTP search site, it’s likely that they’re delivering part of the content from a HTTPS server.  You can check using Fiddler from http://www.fiddlertool.com).

  187. EricLaw [MSFT] says:

    @Don: To add the mail button to the toolbar, right click on the star icon, choose Customize Command Bar / Add or Remove Commands.  Move the Mail icon to the visible set.

  188. Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis says:

    "I was referring to the time that Ian Hixie decided a feature in FireFox should not be implemented because it was ‘ugly’, even though there were numerous requests for it."

    Since you don’t link to the bug or even describe it more fully, we have to rely entirely on your spartan evaluation of this incident. Quite why your disagreement with him on this completely different issue means Hickson is wrong on text/html, I don’t follow.

    "I wasn’t referring to the article, because I hadn’t read it. I’ve seen all the propaganda regarding to use or not to use XHTML, and no one seems to have a valid point."

    Hickson’s article is a key text in the debate about XHTML served as text/html, so your review of the "propaganda" appears to have been somewhat shallow.

    "I just scanned his introduction, and it seems my point is still correct."

    If your opinion of the rest of the "propaganda" is likewise based purely on introductory material and you haven’t actually reviewed the meat of the arguments, I’m not surprised they haven’t persuaded you.

    "One warning regarding using validation. A site may invalidate and still work fine."

    I know what you mean, but it depends how loosely you define "work" and just how low a bar you set for "fine". I’d tend to stress the opposite problem with validation. Even validation does not guarantee your site "works", since:

    1) There are bugs and idiosyncrasies in the validators. For instance W3C’s validator pretends XHTML served as text/html was served as application/xhtml+xml

    2) Content may sometimes validate but not actually conform to the specifications, as there are plenty of rules that cannot easily be incorporated into the validators. Developer therefore need to understand the specifications they are endeavouring to use, which means actually reading the relevant parts of the specifications.

    3) Content may sometimes validate and conform but still be mangled by buggy parsers and renderers. Developers therefore need to be aware of user agent shortcomings to guarantee contemporary utility. For example, if you use Q, you need to find some way to force IE to render quotation punctuation (e.g. with conditional comments).

    4) Mere validation is no guarantee that your site is actually accessible and usable. Developers should therefore follow accessibility and usability research (e.g. http://www.sitepoint.com/article/ajax-screenreaders-work ) and investigate the limitations of current assistive technologies. This is actually not as daunting as it sounds; most screen readers and magnifiers have a free trial or time-limited download, so go try one today, folks:

    http://www.freedomscientific.com/fs_downloads/jaws.asp (JAWS 7.10)

    http://www.dolphincomputeraccess.com/downloads/index.asp (HAL screen reader)

    http://www.gwmicro.com/Window-Eyes/Demo/ (Window-Eyes 5.5)

    http://www.aisquared.com/index.cfm (ZoomText 9.0)

    http://www.screenreader.net/ (free Thunder screen reader)

    http://www.opera.com (comes with voice browsing and supports aural CSS)

    Having said all that, valid code is clearly an essential first step if you want someone else to advise you or fix their browsers to handle your code:

    diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you

    "A site is not going to break because there is no alt property on an image."

    If the images go missing, your user has images turned off, or your user hears your site instead of seeing it, then you risk incomprehensibility. Sure sounds broken to me. (Now it might be that a logical specification would have no ALT attribute rather than a blank ALT attribute for purely decorative images, but then HTML is a (pseudo) backwards-compatible specification not a rationalized one.)

    "An XHTML/HTML standard should not be advocating accessibility features, there are seperate standards for that"

    I’m sorry, Aedrin, but I couldn’t disagree more strongly. Accessibility, flexibility, and usability should be a central concern in standards for web publishing and applications. (This isn’t to say there shouldn’t also be additional accessibility guidelines like WCAG that transcend individual content type specifications.) The web is a gift web designers can give to everyone, and the specifications should help not complicate that openness.

  189. Martin T says:

    This might be a bit offtopic, and sorry about that, but I don’t have any other place to ask so:

    Is there any way to run IE6 in Vista?

    My reason for wanting to do so is simply that I currently develop websites, and I need the ability to test them in IE6. If I install Visto, i do not want to keep Windows XP installed, just to test webpages.

    I have seen there are sereval hacks to run IE6 and IE7 on the same computer, but

    a: Do they work on Vista?

    b: Are they legal? That is: Does Vista come with a license to actuelly run IE6.

    Martin T

  190. Aedrin says:

    "I’m sorry, Aedrin, but I couldn’t disagree more strongly. Accessibility, flexibility, and usability should be a central concern in standards for web publishing and applications."

    I wasn’t saying that there is no room for such standards on the web. I just believe in properly seperating them. Otherwise we might as well make 1 large standard that encompasses all. Not exactly usable.

    "If your opinion of the rest of the "propaganda" is likewise based purely on introductory material and you haven’t actually reviewed the meat of the arguments, I’m not surprised they haven’t persuaded you."

    I’ve read others. Every side can produce interesting points, but none can conclusively exclude the other. So if neither way is right, it is merely a personal choice.

    From the article introduction:

    " 1. Authors write XHTML that makes assumptions that are only valid for

       tag soup or HTML4 browsers, and not XHTML browsers, and send it as

       text/html. (The common assumptions are listed below.)

    2. Authors find everything works fine.

    3. Time passes.

    4. Author decides to send the same content as application/xhtml+xml,

       because it is, after all, XHTML.

    5. Author finds site breaks horribly. (See below for a list of

       reasons why.)

    6. Author blames XHTML."

    2 things are assumed, and the only negative side effect pointed out is that the author (who was wrong in the first place) will wrongly blame the standard.

    This type of discussion is often used in political ads, where they try to convince you by portraying a situation which sounds bad, based on several assumptions.

    If the user had validated their site before publishing it, the chance of it breaking when served as application/xhtml+xml would’ve been quite small.

    Even then, all beginners will easily mistake the technology when the problem lies in their source. This is nothing new, and happens with all programming and scripting languages.

  191. Aedrin says:

    Edit: will easily *blame* the technology

  192. Serious Sam says:

    Eric, I’m really sorry for any inconvenience I’ve caused, but I think I figured out what was happening – I hadn’t set the time and date on my computer properly (had some more issues with it recently, something with the CD drive and it went to the bios screen and I was too lazy to change anything).  Anyways, changed to the correct date (from sometime in 2002, lol) and it seems at least on the surface of things to have cleared everything up.

    Once again, thanks for taking the time to respond.

  193. Vic Berggren says:

    >>You need more than 32 MB to run Windows XP with IE7?

    Aedrin… I’ve got 1Gig in this box

  194. Vic Berggren says:

    >> Try starting with them turned off (start>programs>accessoriez>systemtools>noaddons)

    I’m currently running with addons disabled. thanks though.

  195. Aedrin says:

    That’s odd, because on a computer with 512 MB and both Windows Vista (less memory available) and XP, I was able to browse a dozen or so tabs without a problem.

    Just because it is slow on your computer does not mean that IE is slow. It most likely means your computer is slow.

  196. EricLaw [MSFT] says:

    @Serious Sam: Thanks for getting back to us!  Yup, having a seriously out of date clock would be a problem, because all SSL certificates have a validity period, and they are only valid for use during that time period.  If your computer thought it was 2002, then most sites’ certificates would not yet be valid for use.  

  197. derek says:

    I think Everybody Knows that IE7 is the best browser in the world.

    ((no)) firefox users understand that web2.0 is real as linux

    CSS is important

  198. Coder says:

    == QUOTED ==

    Go into advanced settings. You can turn off the "friendly" (annoying) error pages. I don’t like that either, but I guess it’s more informative for 90% of all people who are not coders.

    == /QUOTED ==

    == QUOTED ==

    Coder wrote: "I hate the non-informative "The webpage cannot be displayed.".

    Turn off friendly error messages you tool! What kind of coder are you!

    == /QUOTED ==

    Well obviously! How long has IE 6 been around? A while! I already knew that!

    Thing is, it doesn’t work completely in IE 7. Some of the errors that used to be clearer in IE 6 have been replaced by the generic page cannot be displayed.

    You no longer get information if the problem is that the address cannot be resolved, you no longer get information if there was a timeout, you no longer get information if there is malformed html, you no longer get information if there is malformed xml, you get no more information period. Just a damned "Page cannot displayed." and no way whatsoever to be able to find out WHY!! it can’t be displayed.

  199. Sharjeel says:

    Within 24 hours of the official launch on Tuesday, there were over 2 million people using Firefox 2.These were willing downloads as opposed to forced IE7 downloads (via Windows update).

    I would also like to mention the two vulnerabilities discovered by Secunia.com lately.

    http://secunia.com/internet_explorer_7_popup_address_bar_spoofing_test/

    http://secunia.com/Internet_Explorer_Arbitrary_Content_Disclosure_Vulnerability_Test/

    Shouldn’t this be matter of concern for the IE team?

  200. Stephen says:

    That radio spot sucks… And so does IE7. The only reason that I will get it in the future is because Steam needs it, and because some computer illiterate users will have it, and I need to make my sites work for it… I can’t beleive that anyone could use it for actual browsing (as opposed to testing). Firefox, Safari, Konqueror and Opera just work so much better. And they have much better interfaces. Not like IE7’s illogical button placement and hidden menus.

  201. Microsoft indique que des millions d’exemplaires de la version officielle d’Internet Explorer 7 ont été

  202. Sebhelyesfarku says:

    I installed this crap just for testing new webpages for compatibility. Hopefully I don’t have to use more than 15 minutes per project.

  203. Going_Commando_and_loving_it. says:

    "*You* have to put in the work because the websites that *you* wrote are not standards-compliant."

    Now why isn’t it standards compliant? O’  that right, IE wasn’t standards compliant at that point in time.  Is it standards compliant now?

    Now cut the smack talk.  

    People should be able to browse the web with anything they choose.  It shouldn’t be picked for them.  

    Here is a thought.  Use open standards and compete with others by those same standards.  Users will pick the best product for their needs.  They you will see inovation; not stagnation.  IE hasn’t seen an update since…. what something like 2001 or 2002?

  204. Anonymous Cowards says:

    Why haven’t you finished HTML support for IE7 (or even 6 for that matter)?

    You’ve had 5 years to finish implementing HTML4 support between versions of IE, and even a couple years before that to get it into IE6.  

    Please support the Q element in your browser.  You could even have quotes.msn.com where users could search the web for quotes.

  205. Hypo says:

    Why do they used truck advertising? So much pollution for a virtual object that is a software. It’s a good peek at big corporations mentality.

  206. GOAway says:

    Do you guys going to release a linux version for IE7? Or will we, the poor people that use linux, have to get stucked with this FireFox forever?

    It’s been more than 4 years that i completley removed windows from my computer[s] so i will have to wait for your linux version.

  207. Adam Penny says:

    Hi there,

    Gordon Bennett, poor guy bothers to post something about the work they’re doing and proceed to get thoroughly slagged off. Sir, you have my sympathies.

    Personally, I think IE7 isn’t looking bad at all, although I must admit some of the button positioning is a bit disorientating. As a matter of fact, dare I say it, I prefer the way that the tabbing works on IE7 to Firefox.

    The thing I’d love an answer to, because it’s really vexing me, is why ie7 seems to have such an inconsistent approach to favicon.ico files. The icon has been linked in to my header include and the site I’ve just built, renders it fine on Firefox 1.5 and Firefox 2, but IE7 doesn’t. Then again, IE7 does render the Google Favicon! But then againn (again) it doesn’t render the favicon for Windows Live Mail beta. Weird…

    Anyway, I hope you intend to sort this in a later update, but generally thanks for moving IE a bit closer to W3C standards as I’m not the sort of person who has ever been bothered to faff with browser sniffing and the like. Once everyone has switched from IE6 to IE7, I might even change my navbars over to position: fixed. Now wouldn’t that be something! 😀

  208. Tanker Bob says:

    Your download stats mean nothing.  I downloaded IE7 twice, finally installed it last night, then uninstalled it this morning.  Although I’m sort of impressed with how much of Firefox’s feature set you imitated, including the options dialogs, IE7 crashed repeatedly on the initial Microsoft runonce page to set the search engines.  I followed all the instructions in the install notes, release notes and the Reset IE Settings page, but made no progress.  Disabled all add-ons, but no go.  Even with only supposedly pre-approved add-ons IE7 crashes on that initial page.  With add-ons disabled, I randomly sampled other sites but encountered the same problem.

    Uninstall was uneventful and IE6 works fine.  However, after using RIES I have to reset my security settings again individually.  That initial runonce page doesn’t seem to exist when I try to access it from IE6.

    I sure hope that Microsoft plans on hiring a huge support staff for when you push this disaster out on Automatic Updates.  I’m disabling Auto Updates well before then.  I’m not normally a Microsoft detractor, being a big fan of WinXP and Office, but IE7 is an embarrassment.

  209. swoolley says:

    The preamble fix isn’t working well.  I have two preamble lines, one for the version and another for the xml css stylesheet.  I had to move that preprocessor line past the doctype to get strict mode working.  Skipping the first line to find the doctype isn’t a good enough algorithm.

    Or you could end your use of stupid hacks.

    I’m in the process of making an app that worked great in mozilla (firefox), opera, konqueror (safari), and even lynx, links, w3m, etc.  In IE6 it’s a mess.  In IE7 I just recently got it working by being extra verbose in my CSS in certain places where it’s still buggy.  It’s a 100% "web 2.0ish sans javascript" CSS layout with lots of dynamic :hover menus.

    I could write a book on the browser bugs I exposed and had to work around.  IE was by far the worst.

    Keep it up though and you might catch up with Konqueror, which was the best.  opera second, and firefox third.

    The ACID tests turned out to be very good indicators of CSS performance for me.

  210. Ehsan says:

    There are about 100 people working on Firefox (take a look at the about dialog), and I doubt if there are more than 10 people working on IE, is that really true?

    If it is true, then there is no need to ask why Firefox works smoother!

  211. Omar A. Perez says:

    @eshan

    Exactly, that’s why Microsoft should let IE7 hit the open source area. People that will love to improve the "FORCED NAVIGATOR", because that is IE an imposition, we can’t uninstall it or delete it without screwing the OS, nice monopoly move from Microsoft. I just want to see a good OS for 3D games, good enough to attract game developers and forget about Windows once and for all.

    Ie7 = Ie = Crap.

    Please I need an uninstaller for IE7.

  212. AutoComplete does not work at all for me since upgrading to IE7. I have posted in the IE newgroups, and to some tech sites, but no luck. There seem to be quite a few people with the same problem. Does anyone have a fix for this? I really get the feeling that this was rushed out too soon…

  213. IDN Investor says:

    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/worldwide/default.mspx

    MS’s page says: "Internet Explorer 7 is now available in Finnish, German, Japanese, and Spanish. To download Internet Explorer 7 in one of these languages, visit a worldwide download page:"

    But in fact, when you click on those pages, no such thing!!!

  214. Lee M says:

    Finally here, ive been waiting to see how it would compare to other browsers. I’m hoping it will give Firefox some real competition.

  215. Aedrin says:

    "nice monopoly move from Microsoft."

    Dictionary.com definition of monopoly:

    ‘-exclusive- control of a commodity or service in a particular market’

    Windows is the only operating system in use? I didn’t know that.

    "I just want to see a good OS for 3D games, good enough to attract game developers and forget about Windows once and for all."

    This will not be happening to Linux or Mac OS any time soon. Good luck having an average user using a Unix/Linux based OS.

  216. AC says:

    @Ehsan

    "There are about 100 people working on Firefox (take a look at the about dialog), and I doubt if there are more than 10 people working on IE, is that really true?"

    The past pictures displaying various members of the IE team on this blog alone should clue you in to this not being true.

  217. Matt Phillips says:

    You mean you’ve had trucks driving round doing absolutely nothing! Absolutely outrageous ignorant waste of fuel and generation of CO2

  218. Vaidas Zilionis says:

    Plese fix window.prompt() isue. Is damn not funny for me to add every site to trusted.

    I as develeoper use it? What about clinets?

  219. Aedrin says:

    "Absolutely outrageous ignorant waste of fuel and generation of CO2"

    Tell that to all the people driving pickup tricks, SUVs and hummers. I think they waste a little bit more driving cars that get 10 or less MPG.

    And I believe the truck appears to be standing still. That is what advertizing trucks do. The ones on the road look like they barely would use 20% of what other cars use. If they’re even powered by an engine. They might be human powered…

  220. SDF says:

    CHANGE WITH CONFIDENCE! *RIGHT!………..*

    – Internet Explorer 7 Window Injection Vulnerability

    – Internet Explorer 7 Popup Address Bar Spoofing Weakness

    – Internet Explorer 7 "mhtml:" Redirection Information Disclosure

    Source: http://secunia.com/

  221. hAl says:

    @ Vaidas Zilionis

    [quote]Plese fix window.prompt() isue. Is damn not funny for me to add every site to trusted.

    I as develeoper use it? What about clinets?[/quote]

    Any serieous ‘developer’ still using window.prompt() should be locked up or be removed from keyboards forever.

  222. just David says:

    Ebay and Yahoo Mail are both broke with my new IE7 that I just installed yesterday.  I get an error on page indicator at the bottom, but certain buttons just don’t work.  I get nothing.  I downloaded the tool from the Microsoft FAQ that makes IE7 emulate IE6.  It helped a little, but basically I can no longer use Ebay or Yahoo Mail.

  223. Retired Old Man says:

    Positives:

    Thanks for the new features.  Print preview with auto page fit is greatly appreciated!  Thanks for the single button to "Delete All…" on delete browsing history.  

    Negatives:

    Kills the icon display for file type .URL … tried to set the icon a couple of ways, and it still refuses to display an icon.  I guess I have to do something to the registry, but I don’t have a clue as to what to change.  Probably a simple fix.  Any of you smart young people out these know how to fix this?

    Comments:

    Looks like others are having a lot of problems, but I haven’t seen these issues … yet.  For example, Yahoo/Yahoo Mail work fine for me.  Good luck to all.

  224. irve says:

    I’m a bit Mozilla fan.

    Yet I find IE7 utterly better due to its tab logic. They are easy to discover (I really like the new tab button mouseovering effect that switches from clean state to the new thingy icon), nice to close (the X on selected tab, NOT on the others as FF2 does; so there are no distracting RED buttons and accidental closings)

    Yet I was perplexed by two user interface flips. First of all: middle button on tab closes tab on mousedown. There has been a long tradition of doing things on mouseup and I’d expect for the browser to let me think over whether I did the right thing by pressing down.

    Then There’s the Tools dropdown (and Page dropdown), which do not work as normal menus do (that is mousedown opens, mouseup selects item that is currently rolled over); this is inconsistent with even your own search dropdown button. I’d like to do mousedown-move-mouseup actions instead click-move-click actions.

    Print Preview in separate dialog is okay, yet I think it should have a larger target button than the tiny corner-[x] to close it.

    All these are polishing issues, yet I did get the feeling of <i>wrongness</i>. I hope someone reads this, files proper bugs.

    Cheers.

  225. irve says:

    Oh, forgot. Autoscroll on middle button looks like I’ve used a time machine, gone back to 3.11 and triggered some bug on my way.

  226. Retired Old Man says:

    Update on .URL issue:

    The problem is with existing shortcuts to files with the .URL extension.  A file with the .URL extension does show the correct icon.  But, when IE7 is installed, any existing shortcuts to these files no longer displays the correct icon.

    When I try to create a new shortcut to a .URL file, instead of creating a shortcut, it now copies the .URL file (and thus displays the correct icon).  Let me repeat that: if you try to create a shortcut to a .URL file, you don’t get a shortcut, you get a copy of the .URL file.  That probably makes sense, but I have a number of existing applications that have installed shortcuts to .URL files, and the previously displayed icons are now gone.

    Solution is to manually set icons on each of these files, or to copy the .URL files to the Start Menus where the current shortcuts are located.  Or, just ignore the problem.

    Most people probably won’t even notice this if they don’t look.

  227. Dirk Blade says:

    With regard to the increased standards compliance of IE7 there a large number of properties, e.g. "expando=true", in the MSDN library HTML and DHTML reference containing the note "There is no public standard that applies to this property".

    Will my 100+ page intranet applications which were written with meticuluous attention to the MS documentation require much work?

  228. Mike says:

    For the most part, I like IE7 fine. I wonder; though, if anyone has issues with clicking on the "feed" links every now and then.

    I mean like the links just not working. THe workaround is closing the borwser, and then opening a new one.

    It is kind of a pain-in-the-ass when you have umpteen tabs open and you have to close the browser.

    Anybody at the big M working on a fix to this? Anybody out there from the IE team chime in with a response on this.

  229. Richard says:

    Alright, I haven’t yet tried IE7 since from what I have read, it’ll overwrite IE6 which I require as a web designer.

    But to me, the most important part of any browser is the standards compliance. Followed very closely is its security.

    I’m sure that every web designer can agree that nothing sucks more then to have to break the validness of a page and/or write extra code for it.

    It shouldn’t matter that "since most websites aren’t standard compliant, we shouldn’t need to obey the standards with our browser." It really destroys the web!

    So can someone tell if IE7 is up to par with all the other browsers with standards and security? If not, I’ll be very disappointed. Thanks.

  230. Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis says:

    @Richard

    "So can someone tell if IE7 is up to par with all the other browsers with standards and security"

    No browser supports all the standards, and no browser fully complies with the standards it supports. Having said that, IE7 generally still lags behinds major rival browsers in terms of both support (no application/xhtml+xml, no SVG) and compliance (e.g. the Q element, display:table*, CSS content generation). On the other hand, IE7 does improve on the standards compliance of IE6. (Which is not to say it doesn’t also introduce a few new deviancies, particularly its Accept-Language header.) Although the IE team dispute his weighting, you may find the following site useful:

    http://www.webdevout.net/browser_support.php

    I’m not going to comment on IE7 and security as I don’t know enough about it, except to note that IE in general is obviously a bigger target and its security depends on obscurity.

  231. milo says:

    Deleted IE7 completely after some reboot bugs, thank you.

  232. michael says:

    can i have one of those posters :)

  233. Tony says:

    "I downloaded the tool from the Microsoft FAQ that makes IE7 emulate IE6." – just David

    I haven’t looked, but could you or someone post a link to such a tool? Is it an official MS product (therefore supported)? Does it make IE7 render CSS like IE6? Could this be the tool web designers have been looking for to resolve the side-by-side IE6/7 install issue?

  234. Nofue says:

    @Tony

    Here’s the link to that tool, and yes, it’s from MS:

    http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=9517DB9C-3C0D-47FE-BD04-FAD82A9AAC9F&displaylang=en

    Haven’t tried it myself, have to buy a new PC running XP first to be able to install IE7 anyway…

    However, for starters I’ll add a "use Firefox" banner to all of the sites I’m in charge of. If this becomes a habit to everybody, it should effectivly tell MS to change its business practices.

  235. Tony says:

    @ Nofue

    Thank you. Although I was aware of this tool I didn’t understand it could be used as a rendering tool. I thought it simply allowed browser (or server) to identify a site as IE6 rather than IE7. A sort of cheat that allowed developers some additional time to update their code.

    "User Agent String Utility version 2

    Brief Description

    A utility that opens an Internet Explorer 7.0 window that is configured to report its identity to websites as being Internet Explorer 6.0.

    […]

    This utility changes certain registry keys on an IE 7.0 installation to allow a user to emulate an IE 6.0 installation as a simple workaround until problematic sites update their code."

    So does this mean that the changed registry keys allow IE7 to render CSS as IE6 would? Such as quirks and strict mode? I can see how this could be useful, but the description can be misleading if this tool doesn’t actually change the display of the website.

    Also, is toggling the browser registry keys back and forth quick and simple? I retest nearly every change I make during the development process, so I F5 up to once or twice per minute. I doubt I can switch back and forth between IE7 and IE6 emulation mode that quickly.

    Although I use FF as my primary browser, I really haven’t looked into much of it’s development tools. Especially FF’s ability to emulate IE. To all those FF fanatics here: how accurate is it’s emulation? I may just have to upgrade and use FF’s emulation of previous IE versions for testing. Provided FF’s emulation is accurate enough.

    But really MS has to come up with a better solution regarding this conundrum. I suppose if this tool did alter the display of the website it could be used as an add-on/button/menu option (ie. File: Work Offline) that could be toggled off/on. We could then test with two different IE windows open: the first with the user agent string enabled and the second disabled. Is this possible?

  236. Rainier says:

    Where is the Javascript console in IE7?  I look in tools menu, file menu, help menu… but can not find it!

  237. Gavan Burden says:

    ………and now various other bits of Microsoft software have stopped working – such as media player, which no longer thinks it is connected to the internet.  How do I fix that?

  238. wildsouth57 says:

    If you are using "Outlook Web Access" to connect to your companies mail server from afar, DON’T INSTALL IE7 !!!!

    When you try to send an email the exchange addon will cause IE7 to crash. EVERY TIME.

    You can start IE7 with all addons disabled and actually send emails, ALTHOUGH YOU CAN’T SEE DIRECTORY LISTINGS OR FOLDER CONTENTS SINCE THEY DEPEND ON THE ADDON.

    Once again the MS team hits the ground running with a real loser that isn’t even compatible with their own software.

    Not to mention the horrendous GUI with practically no toolbar organization capabilities.

    I an attempt to compete with others and implement tabbed browsing, the IE7 team has developed a somewhat disfunctional layout.

    (Thought about putting the tabs on the status bar [or near] at the bottom and going with a more 6’ish toolbar/menu header??  At least give the user more control over placement???

    IE7 Hits the Street  – that’s about all you can say…

    Keep up the good work….. Why is it that all the really talented coders are independent of unemployed??

  239. Andrea says:

    Very good work guys… but damn.

    I’m from Italy. There IS a Microsoft Italy. Why on Earth are you taking so long to translate the software?!? It would take ONE man very FEW days to do the job perfectly. And Microsoft Italy is NOT only one man!

    This is the kind of unreasonable behaviors that upset people and make them want to turn to FF2 (which, by the way, was available in 41 languages x 3 OS’s = 123 versions on day 0)

  240. Christopher Messick says:

    Oh, come on.  Sometimes less is actually less.  Especially where IE7’s toolbars are concerned.

    The address bar is incorporated into the window’s title bar (the blue thing at the top displaying the website and program’s name). If you right-click anywhere outside the address box on the grey area (even on the buttons), the window’s system menu (Restore/Resize/Close/etc…) pops up. This is a bug at best, and flat-out poor programming at worst.

    The menu bar (File/Edit/View/etc…) is off by default. When you turn it on, you cannot place it above the address bar– the natural place for it– because oops! the address bar is part of the title bar, and of course you cannot put the menu bar, or any toolbar for that fact, over the title bar because it’s outside the window.

    I also want to get rid of the "Instant Search" bar to the right of the address field. Mainly because I do not trust Microsoft as far as I can throw them.  As far as I am concerned they are collecting every thing we type in that box  for future marketing and whatnot.  If I want to search I will go to a search engine webpage.

    The homepage and print button is not with the rest of the browsing control buttons. In fact, all the control buttons are randomly scattered about the toolbar area and cannot be re-arranged. I want my forward, back refresh, stop and favorites buttons grouped all together in one place, on one line, in one toolbar. I just hope the toolbars in 7.1 are alot more customizable than they are at present. In its present state, the IE 7 toolbars are MORE cluttered and dissarrayed than they were after I configured my toolbars for IE 6.

    IE7 also offers no innovations as they market it.  This is only a bug-fix / catch-up release with what is already out there.

    Firefox 2 is looking more and more attractive to me…  

  241. Christopher Messick says:

    Ha!

    I just downloaded, installed and ran Firefox 2.0.  I got the toolbar configured just like I want it, and it’s still shorter than IE7’s!

    😛

    Buh-bye, MSIE!

  242. KL says:

    Yeah, they won’t miss you. What a ridicolous comment, go and spam the FF forums instead.

  243. Olivier says:

    Hello,

    thank you for the fantastic work you did on IE7 !!

    I’m using a dual screen config and I like a lot to drag’n drop links from one browser to another (each on one screen). I do that for several years now.

    I really like the tabs now avaible in this new version of IE.

    Can I suggest you something ??

    Do you think that it is possible to drag’n drop links directly to a tab ?

    Lets get a example :

    There are 3 tabs.

    I could drag a link from a page (in tab 1 for ex.) directly to tab 3(or 2) keeping my page untouch in tab 1.

    I could also drag a link from a page (in any tab) directly to a new tab and get that tab opening it. (feature already available in the current version using the middle mouse button but the way explained here).

    What do you think of that ?

    Best regards to all,

    Olivier

  244. Phil Dixon says:

    Downloaded IE7 today, (Nov. 3rd), and it took 20 minutes to figure out it sucks. I don’t appreciate not being able to customize where I want my buttons or links to be. If I want to search for something I’ll go to a search page, I don’t need or want a search bar that I can’t get rid of.

    I like a clean page without all the extra tool bars. By the way, what was the idea of splitting the browser buttons for? Is this supposed to be better?

    So I uninstalled and am back to IE6! What a relief!!

    Micrsoft said they heard and listened, I just don’t know to what. To those who were involved in the programming, LISTEN!!!

  245. Angelsilver says:

    It has been over a week since I uninstalled IE7 and started using FF2.0. Now IE6 still has many of the problems IE7 had and I don’t know how to correct these problems IE7 caused. I can’t do windows update anymore… nothing comes up. So I can’t look for bug fixes… I was just looking for some bug fixes and thought I would try WMP11 and see if it could help my system get back on track… Well, no noticable errors while I installed it, but now I have no WMP at all… 10 is gone and 11 does not even start. Look above for my first post about my errors… around the 25th I think.

    What has me terrified… they are saying that Windows Vista is ready! I wonder if it is as ready as the rest of the junk they have released lately. This brings back bad memories of Windows ME… the worst operating system I have ever used. Maybe they could include XP with every Vista puchase just in case, of course I always thought they would have offered a free xp upgrade to every ME users to help recover from that blunder.

    Keep in mind that I am/was a fan of microsoft and never even tried FF2.0 till after I had a failed attempt at IE7. Since IE7 came out I have had to use FF2.0 because nothing MS has on my machine works. It may be coincedence, but my machine seems like it is imploding ever since I tried to use IE7 and nothing seems to work right any more.

    I wish the IE team good luck in correcting this mess. Honestly I do… because if they can’t, I’m screwed.

  246. Angelsilver says:

    Some people might wonder why I would try to install WMP11 to try to fix IE6 or 7… It goes back to the way MS is overly integrated. Everything is all tied together, so I was thinking that integration would work in my favor if I tried to reinstall everything again, all new programs. But still I get nothing from WMP11 and no improvemnet with the errors in IE. Its sad really, that my system was fine, but my drive for some new updates has caused me to feel like I have to replace the whole thing just to get back to a usable system.

    Every MS powered system should come with a countdown timer so you can better cope with the preprogramed unusability and discintigration of it and move on like they force you to anyways.

  247. JT says:

    You know what I really hate? You guys come out blowing your trumpets and telling the world how great you are. With billions in the bank you still can’t get it right. How about the fact that IE still doesn’t properly support CSS standards? Float tags just don’t work right.

    What a joke.

  248. Ben Darlow says:

    Since ClearType is enabled by default now I’m noticing rendering anomolies with how it handles large-size text. I’ve written an article about it (http://www.kapowaz.net/uncleartype.html) with some screenshots, but it does look like the sub-pixel anti-aliasing system has some flaws. Any word on whether or not this is known about or if it’s likely to be fixed in Vista?

  249. Catalin says:

    The new Address Bar short-cut overrides the Alt-D access keys defined on the document page. Why?

    All other shortcuts work properly (e.g. Alt-F)

  250. IE 7 IS A GREAT BROWESER TO USE BUT THE FILE GETS CORRUPT VERY FAST

  251. While accepting at face value the various security enhancements built into IE 7, this new browser significantly diminishes user effectiveness as described below:

    1. Many billions of person-minutes will be racked up in wasted time as users re-familiarize themselves with the relocated buttons that are commonly used like Home Page, Refresh & Stop. These are now separated from the Back & Forward buttons unlike in IE 6 and previous versions that clustered these buttons together at the upper left of the page. And, there’s no way to move the Command buttons (Home Page, etc.) to the left side of that horizontal space to thus be closer to the Back & Forward buttons.

    2. If one doesn’t enable the Menu bar, then there’s no command available to send a shortcut to the desktop.

    3. With the Menu bar enabled, there’s no need for the Favorites Center and Add to Favorites buttons on the left edge of that bar. But they’re not removable and thus become redundant. Further, the Menu bar consumes one horizontal space whose center and right side is empty. Instead, perhaps the Command buttons could have been located in this space thus making more vertical screen space available for website content. Or, obtain the same result by moving the Menu bar content to the left of the Command buttons.

    4. Tabbed browsing is a nice feature but I suspect most users will have trouble benefiting from it.

    5. Users that possess the MSN Desktop Toolbar will have two anti-phishing tools apparently redundantly at work. And, at least two web search windows available plus another if their home page contains a search window. If they hide the MSN Desktop Toolbar, then it’s form-fill feature is disabled. To preserve that feature, the bar must remain visible which reduces vertical screen space at the expense of website content. MSFT should have built a form-fill feature into IE 7 to improve user security by permitting more complex password usage. Also, MSN’s desktop search feature should have been included as an optional feature. Or, set up like websearch in IE 7 with the selection of search engine left to the user.

    On balance, IE 7’s enhanced security features come at a significant price in user effectiveness.