CNET: "Microsoft's IE 7 beta isn't a Mozilla Firefox killer. Far from it."

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

http://reviews.cnet.com/Microsoft_Internet_Explorer_7_Beta/4505-3514_7-31454661-2.html?tag=top

It's been almost four years since Microsoft refreshed its venerable Internet Explorer browser. But Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 for XP Beta isn't a Mozilla Firefox killer--far from it. Microsoft's limited availability for IE 7 should only open the door wider for competing browsers to steal even more market share in the months to come. Given the high expectations, we're unimpressed with the IE 7 for XP Beta.

Upside: IE 7 for XP Beta is the first serious upgrade to Internet Explorer in four years, and it adds tabbed browsing and built-in RSS--two features that are currently available in Netscape 8, Mozilla Firefox, and Apple Safari RSS. Unfortunately, the tabbed browsing feature in this beta is still clunky, and one of the best new features (the RSS icon lights up whenever a page has subscription content available) won't be available until the second beta (expected later in 2005). Another great feature, Microsoft's new antiphishing technology, is not part of the current IE 7 beta for Windows Vista but is included in beta 1 of IE 7 for XP. Microsoft does improve printing capabilities within IE 7 for XP. No longer will you have to contend with truncated pages; in IE 7 for XP, the pages will be reduced to fit the printed page.

Downside: Only those running Windows XP SP2 will be able to run the latest version of IE. This is Microsoft's way of forcing non-Windows XP SP2 users to upgrade. Those still running Windows 2000, Me, or even 98 SE will be forced to continue using IE 6 or commit to a $199 Windows XP OS upgrade. This strategy could backfire, giving rivals Mozilla Firefox and Netscape an even bigger slice of the browser pie, especially among those wanting RSS feeds now.

As mentioned, unless you already have Windows XP SP2 installed, IE 7 for XP won't be available for you. We think that's a dumb approach, and we see Microsoft's marketing fumble as a definite win for Mozilla Firefox and Netscape. We're not convinced that the security features touted in IE 7 will be enough to stave off the almost monthly security patches required to keep IE secure.

[tridim]

1. IMO Mozilla Firefox is the Mozilla Firefox killer

Hype != quality

[matcom]

12. yup. NOT installing Firefox on my new system

piece.o.shite.

[no name no slogan]

2. Glad IE is catching up to Opera-- five years later

which is IMHO better than both Moz and IE.

[Mojambo]

13. I really love Opera

I'm using the 8.02 right now and I just can't imagine going back to either IE or Firefox (Although I do still like Firefox.)

Opera is just ridiculously fast.

[Clintmax]

3. I use and love Firefox!

And with the extensions you can download and install, it is MUCH more user friendly (not to mention more secure) than IE! FORGET IE, I say!

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

4. Make sure you install the "No Script" extension...

...It blocks JavaScript on EVERY Web Site you visit. you right-click and approve them one at a time, either temporarily or permanently.

Don't need JavaScript enabled to view content on a site? Keep it blocked. Need JavaScript to view content on a trusted site? Enable it.

It's sweet, and while there's an initial "nuisance curve" while you set preferences for your favorite sites, it's worth it in the long run.

:toast:

https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?id=722&application=firefox

[ghostsofgiants]

5. Installed that today actually

Still awful after all these years.

[RagingInMiami]

6. The problem I have with firefox is that some websites

Like the one I'm building, appear a little out of whack when it appears perfectly normal on IE. I don't know how to correct this problem.

[Ratty]

8. Let us see it

It's tricky getting websites to look good in different browsers. All I ever have time for is getting them to look right in the big two. Once they look good in MSIE and Firefox I'm done. Poor Opera, poor Safari, I just don't have the time to deal with them all.

I've learned a thing or two about CSS quirks in the two browsers, from indentation to alignment to centering, there are tricks you can do that will work in both browsers.

If worse comes to absolute worse you can rely on a desperate last-ditch hack using javascript. At the point in your document where you're having trouble you can insert a little code. I don't think this will display properly in the forums but you can do something like this:

<p>Some HTML content here</p>
<script language="javascript">
if (document.all) {
document.write('<tag attribute="blah"><etc>');
} else {
document.write('<tag attribute="blech"><etc>');
}
</script>
<p>More HTML content</p>

The document.all part is a quick and dirty (and some will say careless) way to detect MSIE.

With a bit more difficulty you can use the same method to create different CSS. I will steer you here on how to do that. It's the best site in the world for web designers.

How do I manipulate a style class?

[RagingInMiami]

9. I will PM it to you

Because there are too many right-wing freaks that monitor this site and would love nothing better than to sabotage my site.

[youspeakmylanguage]

10. Does your HTML and CSS comply to W3C web standards?

That will help eliminate most of your problems:

http://www.w3c.org/
http://validator.w3.org/
http://www.webstandards.org/

[RagingInMiami]

11. I have no idea what all that means

I built the site using a program called Website Complete. I bought it through Go Daddy. They haven't done a good job in helping me work out the glitches.

[youspeakmylanguage]

14. You're using a WYSIWYG editor...

...which stands for "What You See Is What You Get". That could be part of the problem. You're not dealing with your markup (code) on a hands-on basis

I'm busy at work, so I don't have the time it would take to explain web standards and the reason they're important, but long story short:

1) The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is composed of the people who created and ulimately govern the World Wide Web. They decide what standards and formats that webmasters should use to make their sites 100% compatible with browsers, news readers, etc.

2) You don't have to follow their standards and formats to a "T", but the further you deviate from them, usually the less compatible your site becomes. Some sites can disregard their standards to a certain point and still be compatible with most browsers (like Democratic Underground, for instance), but it takes a lot of extra time, man hours, and money to tweak the code.

3) Microsoft, who I consider to be the Great Satan of computer technology, and Netscape decided early on to disregard some of the fundamentals the W3C proposed and develop their own proprietary markup, which lead to their little "browser war". Because of that, a lot of "quirks" in the older markup of web sites have to be compensated for in Internet Explorer, and that can also screw up how those sites are displayed in Firefox, Opera, etc. Some people even teach the old, screwed-up ways of developing sites to this day, but most respected webmasters learn, use, and teach the proper standards.

To get around all of this, the best thing to do is learn what standards the W3C has proposed for the current universal HTML standards (HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 strict) and CSS, and learn how to build your sites by hand and then check and re-check them using the W3C validator.

If you don't have the time or patience for that, then you may have to live with what your WYSIWYG editor gives you. But in the long run, learning proper markup and standards is the best way to go.

[Greyhound]

7. LMAO! "keep IE secure", that's so funny

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[no name no slogan]

15. did somebody say "buffer overrun"?

:hi: