Friday, July 29, 2005
OPINION :: Internet Explorer 7 is One More Case of "Too Little Too Late"
Hey! Microsoft just released their beta version of the long-awaited, much anticipated update of their Internet Explorer browser, which still commands (unjustly, in my opinion) a huge majority of the browser market.
So far in it's spotted history, IE has come under fire multiple times for lack of functionality when compared to other competing products, and more so recently with the full release of Mozilla's Firefox, not to mention that whole anti-trust fiasco contending Microsoft's right to ensure their customers used their (Microsoft's) browser by bundling it, and no others, with Windows. In light of all of the troubles that IE has wrought during my online journeys, I will withhold spewing any of my admittedly tainted judgements forth, at least for the moment, and simply present you, dear reader, with a short list of pros and cons about this new IE release, and let you make your own call.
Now, the first thing that I noticed when looking over screenshots and reading reviews for this product was that Microsoft seemed bent on playing dad to its customers. Once again, their obsession with anti-piracy features puts more of a burden on their customers than on their intended targets: owners of illegal copies of Windows XP. For example, to even install IE7 in the first place, you have to go through an authentication procedure, which re-verifies that your copy of Windows XP is legit. If you're not just skimming this, then you're probably thinking "but what about Windows 2000 or ME," and you'd be dead-on with my own line of thinking at this point. The answer? No matter how appealing the new IE looks to you, no matter how much you'd like to support Microsoft's latest venture, you simply won't be able to unless you buy Windows XP. Period. But wait, there's more. Even if you currently have a legit copy of Windows XP, if you don't have Service Pack 2 installed, you STILL can't get the new IE. Worse, if your machine just goes nuts whenever you try to install SP2, (thanks for THAT one Microsoft), then you are STILL stuck having to buy Windows all over again, with SP2 already embedded, JUST so you can upgrade your web browser?! Granted, this is what it's requiring in it's beta form, but I doubt that will change when it finally goes gold. Okay, on with that list I mentioned:
New Features
----------------
- Tabbed browsing : Microsoft's version of tabbed browsing is fairly close to the look and functionality of Firefox's tabs. Click with your wheel mouse on a link, and the new page opens in a new tab.
- Integrated search bar: About danged time too. We've been forced to install Google's searchbar if we wanted a decent quick-search method in IE. What's interesting is that even in beta, IE7's integrated search bar defaults to Google! It's also ready to work with a few other major search engines.
- Full .png image rendering support: Also about time. What with all these Linux nerds and their affinity for anything outside the lines, .png images have been making appearances all over the major websites lately. Well, to be fair, .png as a format has some hefty advantages over the old-and-busted .gif format. IE7 supports them now, but it's still very clunky and rough.
- Built-in phishing protection: An interesting addition. IE7 will actually allow the user to submit a suspected phishing site address to Microsoft for a little closer scrutiny. Sites that have already been identified as phishing sites will cause a small notification to show up in the browser status bar. Good idea, but this also gets the tin foil hat guy in me wondering what else MS is retrieving from us through the browser. Just saying...
- RSS newsfeed reader: This is one that a lot of IE fans were clamoring for. It seems to work pretty well, although it's evident that this feature still needs some tweaking before it's ready for the final release.
Okay, those were the major pros. Now it's time for, and you knew they were coming, The Cons.
- Forced authentication/conformity: Look, I'm all in favor of Microsoft making a buck or two off of their efforts, but when they go to the lengths of making me prove my legitimacy to them (again) for the sake of upgrading a freaking web browser, I start considering whether or not the problem is with their ability to trust my software installation, or ME personally. Not only that, but I haven't been exempt from those issues that many people were having with SP2. I couldn't install it unless I re-installed a new copy of Windows with SP2 already built-in. No way I'm going to let a browser dictate to me what I should be running for an OS.
- Excessive memory usage: Flexbeta's review went so far as to check the memory used by both Internet Explorer 7 and Firefox, side by side. It turns out that IE was using 20MB MORE than Firefox for the same load. What?! Why so much guys? Well, then again, this IS still beta. IE fans will simply have to wait with bated breath to see if this particular con is a bug waiting to be squashed, or one more "unintended feature".
- Still no true CSS2 support: Yes, Microsoft continues to deny that there even EXISTS such a thing as CSS2, except for their own version of it, of course. Also of course, IE7 will continue the longstanding MS tradition of supporting its own unique suite of commands while completely ignoring the really neat things that everybody else's browsers are capable of rendering under CSS2.
All in all and in the end, IE7 IS Microsoft's product, and so is the operating system under which it was intended to run. However, I really have a problem with the fact that Microsoft is going out on a limb this far regarding a pair of products that are simply dominating the markets for which they were intended. Their current authentication scheme is unfair to their customers, as is the practice of forcing upgrades. Sure, some people simply need to get with the times, but not everyone can afford the latest and greatest hardware. If Microsoft is truly envisioning a computer in every home, then they really need to mellow out and start working on making their product a little cheaper and more accessible to the masses. Let's face it: they have every right in the world when it comes to casting the ole fish eye on folks trying to activate a new Windows install, who may or may not have obtained their installation keys legally. But when they start burdening their legit customers this way, what's to keep them from moving to an alternative OS the moment something viable comes along?
I firmly believe that the only reason Windows has such a stranglehold on the market is because there are no other products allowed to compete with it. If somebody comes up with a potential solution that may be a threat, Microsoft simply throws so much money at them that they can't resist selling out. Hey, I know I would if I were offered a cool couple million to knock it off. There's money now, and there's potential bigger money later. I admit it: I'm all about the instant gratification. Like you aren't? Please...
So anyhow, like I was saying, if someone were to successfully release a solid-completing product to Windows, there would likely be a mass exodus to their camp. One such potential is next year's hotly-anticipated OSX86 (Apple OSX for Intel architecture).
It's okay if you don't think this is so. We'll see who's right when Apple cries "havoc," and lets slip the dogs of war. Sides will be chosen very quickly, and I know that given the choice, for my part, I would choose the stable OS that doesn't watch over my shoulder and restrict what I do with my own computer in my own home. Whoops, that's OSX, isn't it?! Heh.
Listen, you don't have to take my third word for it. Check out these links to check out some reviews from the folks that have already pushed IE7 to its current limits, and found it lacking.
http://www.flexbeta.net/main/articles.php?action=show&id=102&perpage=1&pagenum=3
http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/software/internet/0,39024165,39210992,00.htm
http://slashdot.org/articles/05/07/29/0618205.shtml?tid=154&tid=95&tid=185&tid=1
Deadweasel is dreaming of a Mac Christmas.
So far in it's spotted history, IE has come under fire multiple times for lack of functionality when compared to other competing products, and more so recently with the full release of Mozilla's Firefox, not to mention that whole anti-trust fiasco contending Microsoft's right to ensure their customers used their (Microsoft's) browser by bundling it, and no others, with Windows. In light of all of the troubles that IE has wrought during my online journeys, I will withhold spewing any of my admittedly tainted judgements forth, at least for the moment, and simply present you, dear reader, with a short list of pros and cons about this new IE release, and let you make your own call.
Now, the first thing that I noticed when looking over screenshots and reading reviews for this product was that Microsoft seemed bent on playing dad to its customers. Once again, their obsession with anti-piracy features puts more of a burden on their customers than on their intended targets: owners of illegal copies of Windows XP. For example, to even install IE7 in the first place, you have to go through an authentication procedure, which re-verifies that your copy of Windows XP is legit. If you're not just skimming this, then you're probably thinking "but what about Windows 2000 or ME," and you'd be dead-on with my own line of thinking at this point. The answer? No matter how appealing the new IE looks to you, no matter how much you'd like to support Microsoft's latest venture, you simply won't be able to unless you buy Windows XP. Period. But wait, there's more. Even if you currently have a legit copy of Windows XP, if you don't have Service Pack 2 installed, you STILL can't get the new IE. Worse, if your machine just goes nuts whenever you try to install SP2, (thanks for THAT one Microsoft), then you are STILL stuck having to buy Windows all over again, with SP2 already embedded, JUST so you can upgrade your web browser?! Granted, this is what it's requiring in it's beta form, but I doubt that will change when it finally goes gold. Okay, on with that list I mentioned:
New Features
----------------
- Tabbed browsing : Microsoft's version of tabbed browsing is fairly close to the look and functionality of Firefox's tabs. Click with your wheel mouse on a link, and the new page opens in a new tab.
- Integrated search bar: About danged time too. We've been forced to install Google's searchbar if we wanted a decent quick-search method in IE. What's interesting is that even in beta, IE7's integrated search bar defaults to Google! It's also ready to work with a few other major search engines.
- Full .png image rendering support: Also about time. What with all these Linux nerds and their affinity for anything outside the lines, .png images have been making appearances all over the major websites lately. Well, to be fair, .png as a format has some hefty advantages over the old-and-busted .gif format. IE7 supports them now, but it's still very clunky and rough.
- Built-in phishing protection: An interesting addition. IE7 will actually allow the user to submit a suspected phishing site address to Microsoft for a little closer scrutiny. Sites that have already been identified as phishing sites will cause a small notification to show up in the browser status bar. Good idea, but this also gets the tin foil hat guy in me wondering what else MS is retrieving from us through the browser. Just saying...
- RSS newsfeed reader: This is one that a lot of IE fans were clamoring for. It seems to work pretty well, although it's evident that this feature still needs some tweaking before it's ready for the final release.
Okay, those were the major pros. Now it's time for, and you knew they were coming, The Cons.
- Forced authentication/conformity: Look, I'm all in favor of Microsoft making a buck or two off of their efforts, but when they go to the lengths of making me prove my legitimacy to them (again) for the sake of upgrading a freaking web browser, I start considering whether or not the problem is with their ability to trust my software installation, or ME personally. Not only that, but I haven't been exempt from those issues that many people were having with SP2. I couldn't install it unless I re-installed a new copy of Windows with SP2 already built-in. No way I'm going to let a browser dictate to me what I should be running for an OS.
- Excessive memory usage: Flexbeta's review went so far as to check the memory used by both Internet Explorer 7 and Firefox, side by side. It turns out that IE was using 20MB MORE than Firefox for the same load. What?! Why so much guys? Well, then again, this IS still beta. IE fans will simply have to wait with bated breath to see if this particular con is a bug waiting to be squashed, or one more "unintended feature".
- Still no true CSS2 support: Yes, Microsoft continues to deny that there even EXISTS such a thing as CSS2, except for their own version of it, of course. Also of course, IE7 will continue the longstanding MS tradition of supporting its own unique suite of commands while completely ignoring the really neat things that everybody else's browsers are capable of rendering under CSS2.
All in all and in the end, IE7 IS Microsoft's product, and so is the operating system under which it was intended to run. However, I really have a problem with the fact that Microsoft is going out on a limb this far regarding a pair of products that are simply dominating the markets for which they were intended. Their current authentication scheme is unfair to their customers, as is the practice of forcing upgrades. Sure, some people simply need to get with the times, but not everyone can afford the latest and greatest hardware. If Microsoft is truly envisioning a computer in every home, then they really need to mellow out and start working on making their product a little cheaper and more accessible to the masses. Let's face it: they have every right in the world when it comes to casting the ole fish eye on folks trying to activate a new Windows install, who may or may not have obtained their installation keys legally. But when they start burdening their legit customers this way, what's to keep them from moving to an alternative OS the moment something viable comes along?
I firmly believe that the only reason Windows has such a stranglehold on the market is because there are no other products allowed to compete with it. If somebody comes up with a potential solution that may be a threat, Microsoft simply throws so much money at them that they can't resist selling out. Hey, I know I would if I were offered a cool couple million to knock it off. There's money now, and there's potential bigger money later. I admit it: I'm all about the instant gratification. Like you aren't? Please...
So anyhow, like I was saying, if someone were to successfully release a solid-completing product to Windows, there would likely be a mass exodus to their camp. One such potential is next year's hotly-anticipated OSX86 (Apple OSX for Intel architecture).
It's okay if you don't think this is so. We'll see who's right when Apple cries "havoc," and lets slip the dogs of war. Sides will be chosen very quickly, and I know that given the choice, for my part, I would choose the stable OS that doesn't watch over my shoulder and restrict what I do with my own computer in my own home. Whoops, that's OSX, isn't it?! Heh.
Listen, you don't have to take my third word for it. Check out these links to check out some reviews from the folks that have already pushed IE7 to its current limits, and found it lacking.
http://www.flexbeta.net/main/articles.php?action=show&id=102&perpage=1&pagenum=3
http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/software/internet/0,39024165,39210992,00.htm
http://slashdot.org/articles/05/07/29/0618205.shtml?tid=154&tid=95&tid=185&tid=1
Deadweasel is dreaming of a Mac Christmas.
Comments:
<< Home
just a question.. do you make comments based on your own experience or are you just re-spewing someone elses review? No offense, but its frustrating to read a review of something with absolutely no evidence or information to back up your claims....
for example:
- Full .png image rendering support: Also about time. What with all these Linux nerds and their affinity for anything outside the lines, .png images have been making appearances all over the major websites lately. Well, to be fair, .png as a format has some hefty advantages over the old-and-busted .gif format. IE7 supports them now, but it's still very clunky and rough.
Clunky and rough? How is it "clunky and rough"? How the hell can a browser display images on a website "clunky and rough". this makes absolutely no sense at all.
- Built-in phishing protection: An interesting addition. IE7 will actually allow the user to submit a suspected phishing site address to Microsoft for a little closer scrutiny. Sites that have already been identified as phishing sites will cause a small notification to show up in the browser status bar. Good idea, but this also gets the tin foil hat guy in me wondering what else MS is retrieving from us through the browser. Just saying...
Are you kidding me? If they ever got busted leeching data from their customers, MS would be in the deepest shit EVER by the government. That would be breaking 123,990,992 privacy laws! Give me a break.
- RSS newsfeed reader: This is one that a lot of IE fans were clamoring for. It seems to work pretty well, although it's evident that this feature still needs some tweaking before it's ready for the final release.
How is it "evident" that a stupid search feature needs "tweaking"?
- Forced authentication/conformity: Look, I'm all in favor of Microsoft making a buck or two off of their efforts, but when they go to the lengths of making me prove my legitimacy to them (again) for the sake of upgrading a freaking web browser, I start considering whether or not the problem is with their ability to trust my software installation, or ME personally. Not only that, but I haven't been exempt from those issues that many people were having with SP2. I couldn't install it unless I re-installed a new copy of Windows with SP2 already built-in. No way I'm going to let a browser dictate to me what I should be running for an OS.
Give me a break. Are you serious? Youre obviously trying to hide the fact youre pissed off because youre going to have to eventually pay for your pirated version of windows. If you dont like it, use linux or buy a mac and quit complaining.
- Still no true CSS2 support: Yes, Microsoft continues to deny that there even EXISTS such a thing as CSS2, except for their own version of it, of course. Also of course, IE7 will continue the longstanding MS tradition of supporting its own unique suite of commands while completely ignoring the really neat things that everybody else's browsers are capable of rendering under CSS2.
Umm, you may want to recall that Netscape started this "standard" of not following W3c Standards. But thgats beside the point I guess...But the REAL reason IE7 does not have true CSS2 support yet is because they stated it would require a complete rebuild of the IE rendering engine, and theres no way they could do that before their expe cted launch date of the software. Thats business. I know youre going to start bitching and say "but but but they SHOULD have it!" yes they should, but they dont. They noted that they intend to support it in the near future, but its not a viable business decision at this point. Im a web developer and Id LOVE to see it, and although it irritates me that they dont have it yet, it makes no sense to bitch about it.. its their software.. they can do what they want.
No offense, maybe you do have answers for this stuff. But to me, just reading your article, it seems like you're just looking for reasons to be pissed off at "the man".
for example:
- Full .png image rendering support: Also about time. What with all these Linux nerds and their affinity for anything outside the lines, .png images have been making appearances all over the major websites lately. Well, to be fair, .png as a format has some hefty advantages over the old-and-busted .gif format. IE7 supports them now, but it's still very clunky and rough.
Clunky and rough? How is it "clunky and rough"? How the hell can a browser display images on a website "clunky and rough". this makes absolutely no sense at all.
- Built-in phishing protection: An interesting addition. IE7 will actually allow the user to submit a suspected phishing site address to Microsoft for a little closer scrutiny. Sites that have already been identified as phishing sites will cause a small notification to show up in the browser status bar. Good idea, but this also gets the tin foil hat guy in me wondering what else MS is retrieving from us through the browser. Just saying...
Are you kidding me? If they ever got busted leeching data from their customers, MS would be in the deepest shit EVER by the government. That would be breaking 123,990,992 privacy laws! Give me a break.
- RSS newsfeed reader: This is one that a lot of IE fans were clamoring for. It seems to work pretty well, although it's evident that this feature still needs some tweaking before it's ready for the final release.
How is it "evident" that a stupid search feature needs "tweaking"?
- Forced authentication/conformity: Look, I'm all in favor of Microsoft making a buck or two off of their efforts, but when they go to the lengths of making me prove my legitimacy to them (again) for the sake of upgrading a freaking web browser, I start considering whether or not the problem is with their ability to trust my software installation, or ME personally. Not only that, but I haven't been exempt from those issues that many people were having with SP2. I couldn't install it unless I re-installed a new copy of Windows with SP2 already built-in. No way I'm going to let a browser dictate to me what I should be running for an OS.
Give me a break. Are you serious? Youre obviously trying to hide the fact youre pissed off because youre going to have to eventually pay for your pirated version of windows. If you dont like it, use linux or buy a mac and quit complaining.
- Still no true CSS2 support: Yes, Microsoft continues to deny that there even EXISTS such a thing as CSS2, except for their own version of it, of course. Also of course, IE7 will continue the longstanding MS tradition of supporting its own unique suite of commands while completely ignoring the really neat things that everybody else's browsers are capable of rendering under CSS2.
Umm, you may want to recall that Netscape started this "standard" of not following W3c Standards. But thgats beside the point I guess...But the REAL reason IE7 does not have true CSS2 support yet is because they stated it would require a complete rebuild of the IE rendering engine, and theres no way they could do that before their expe cted launch date of the software. Thats business. I know youre going to start bitching and say "but but but they SHOULD have it!" yes they should, but they dont. They noted that they intend to support it in the near future, but its not a viable business decision at this point. Im a web developer and Id LOVE to see it, and although it irritates me that they dont have it yet, it makes no sense to bitch about it.. its their software.. they can do what they want.
No offense, maybe you do have answers for this stuff. But to me, just reading your article, it seems like you're just looking for reasons to be pissed off at "the man".
# posted by 
: 8:54 AM
: 8:54 AM
-- "do you make comments based on your own experience or are you just re-spewing someone elses review? No offense, but its frustrating to read a review of something with absolutely no evidence or information to back up your claims...."
Well, I do recall stating that:
1) "In light of all of the troubles that IE has wrought during my online journeys, I will withhold spewing any of my admittedly tainted judgements forth, at least for the moment, and simply present you, dear reader, with a short list of pros and cons about this new IE release, and let you make your own call"
and
2) "Now, the first thing that I noticed when looking over screenshots and reading reviews for this product..."
I thought I had made it pretty clear that this was an OPINION, made on the basis of reviews presented by folks who took the chance of "upgrading" to a product that stood a good chance of breaking a perfectly good Windows install, and posted their observations. Think I'm exaggerating about an MS upgrade breaking an install? Service Pack 2 anyone? 'Nuff said.
It was simply my intent to provide another possible avenue for readers to get some info on the product.
My description of IE7's .png support being clunky and rough goes hand in hand with it's already well-known tendency to be a memory-hog. Sure, .png files display perfectly fine, but scroll the webpage, and the image "jerks" its way to follow the page. That, in my OPINION, is clunky and rough.
-- "Are you kidding me? If they ever got busted leeching data from their customers, MS would be in the deepest shit EVER by the government. That would be breaking 123,990,992 privacy laws! Give me a break."
Right. So are you telling me that there isn't a website out there that doesn't already track their users through the use of cookies? Are you saying that MS simply takes the registration info it gets from its users and just stuffs it away somewhere, never to be seen again? Right. Also, you're putting words in my mouth and generalizing to an extreme. I never made a single mention of MS possibly violating personal privacy. I simply speculated about what *else* their "new and improved" browser might be collecting about the user as he/she goes about his/her web travels. It's a well-known fact that there IS no privacy on the web unless you're an uber-paranoid nerd hell-bent on web anonymity tools. People submit their personal info, including credit card and social security info, over the web every minute of every day. News stories are constantly coming over the wire about companies selling their customer databases, and major credit card companies "losing track" of hundreds of card numbers on discs. If the data is offered up, someone's going to make use of it. Any seasoned web programmer knows that a LOT of information can be gleaned from data as simple as an IP address.
-- "How is it "evident" that a stupid search feature needs "tweaking"? "
Not being much of an RSS user myself, I can't offer too much more detail than was offered in the reviews I read. Please remember that my post in no way reflects my personal conclusions. It is simply a digest of what I've read from others' experiences with the product. If you would be so kind as to do more than skim the article, you might find the links to the articles I originally read at the bottom.
-- "Give me a break. Are you serious? Youre obviously trying to hide the fact youre pissed off because youre going to have to eventually pay for your pirated version of windows. If you dont like it, use linux or buy a mac and quit complaining."
There's that generalization again. What did anything I say have to do with pirated copies? It's a well-known fact that SP2 will NOT install on many big-box machines (Dell, HP, Compaq etc) unless it's already embedded in the installation media. So in essence, if I'm one of those people that can't upgrade to SP2, EVEN WITH A LEGIT LICENSE, then I'm STILL stuck buying a new copy with SP2 included, simply to have USB2.0 and Firewire support. Nice.
So, I'm Joe Customer, I've shown my good faith in MS by purchasing a copy of Windows XP Pro (no service packs), and installed, only to discover later that I need SP2 to support some cool hardware I got for Christmas. Go to install the patch, wait about 30 minutes for the download and install to complete, only to find my installation has been rendered useless, and nothing will fix it short of a full format. So, I call MS to ask about how to get my legit copy upgraded.
"Buy the version with SP2 already on it" is the reply.
"Do I get a discount because this is your fault to begin with?"
"No. You can buy a new copy now, or wait for the patch to be released."
So, I can spend another $100+ for another copy, or I wait to use my shiny new external hard drive until they patch the patch?
Well, to the surprise of those that DID wait, they attempted to install the new patch, with the same results.
Do you see what I'm getting at here? IE7 will force you to upgrade to SP2 and force you to re-authenticate your copy again. If you're one of the lucky original customers who bought Windows XP circa pre-SP2, you run a double risk when trying to upgrade IE. The first is that their new authentication process suddenly forgets that you're a legit customer and denies you the upgrade. The second is when it tries to force SP2 down your throat, and your whole Windows installation is destroyed.
Why would I, as a paying customer, go through that stress, just to get the features in a browser that are already available, and have BEEN available for a while, in Firefox?
Again, 'nuff said.
Oh, by the way, I DO use Linux when I need to do some serious work on a computer, beyond playing games or messing around with novelty programs. Debian's a wonderful thing. You should try it sometime!
-- "But the REAL reason IE7 does not have true CSS2 support yet is because they stated it would require a complete rebuild of the IE rendering engine, and theres no way they could do that before their expe cted launch date of the software. Thats business. I know youre going to start bitching and say "but but but they SHOULD have it!" yes they should, but they dont. They noted that they intend to support it in the near future, but its not a viable business decision at this point. Im a web developer and Id LOVE to see it, and although it irritates me that they dont have it yet, it makes no sense to bitch about it.. its their software.. they can do what they want."
Yes, Netscape started that whole thing, and where's Netscape now? Still second fiddle, and falling behind rapidly, but, as you said, that's beside the point.
Yes, true CSS2 support WOULD require a complete rebuild of the engine. I'm playing the world's tiniest violin right now, can you hear it? If they were worried about making the expected release date, why did they bother announcing the release date until they could nail down the features that they KNEW their users truly wanted in a browser? It needs a rebuild? DO IT!
Or, could this whole thing be related to the fact that they have NEVER truly done what was needed long ago, and simply added kludge upon kludge, hacking together something passable enough to appease the masses, instead of truly innovating and creating something that would be rock-solid secure. You must realize that most of the security holes in Windows are stemming directly from IE, and it's tight integration with Windows itself. Why wouldn't they simply re-write the thing if it's proving to be so buggy and risky? (I say "simply" but I know it's no mean feat. I still say "tough noogies" to the programmers whining about how long it would take).
I'm getting off-track here. Listen, CSS2 has been solidified as a standard by W3C, as you yourself have affirmed. If that's the case, why would MS choose to constantly deny that there even WAS any standard but their own until now?
More to the point, why is MS talking about that support in future versions? IE7 was supposed to be THE LAST major version released, whereupon they would settle on the task of solidifying the browser's stability and security. Oops. Guess that was another one of those statements that "leaked out" before they were ready to issue it.
Look, I feel MS' stance on needing to re-write the engine to decode CSS2 code is more of a PR ploy than actuality. They need as many excuses as they can find to get the public to accept yet another version down the road. They did the same thing with Longhorn (oops, I mean Vista) already. It was touted as the last major Windows version ever. Then, they started backpedaling on the release dates. Then they started pulling out features that people were most excited about. For example, Unix-style command line functionality. Not in Vista anymore, but hey! You can buy it separately! Wow, what a deal!
Also, a truly journaling filesystem that would make searching for files an incredibly fast affair, not to mention greatly reduced fragmentation. They pulled that one too, and then dropped their bombshell.
"We will be introducing that particular feature over the course of the next few major versions of Windows."
What?! Well, I should have seen that one coming. Now they have left the door open to continue releasing major versions, despite their previous press releases to the contrary.
Well, anyhow, it's not like I'm trying to find excuses to be pissed off at "The Man". First, there is no "The Man", and second, I don't need to find excuses. They are giving me plenty all on their own.
Why would I ever want to upgrade their IE browser when it stands a good chance of being another software lemon, and many other browsers can give me every bit (and more) of the useability I expect on today's World Wide Web, all without the repeated hassles of dealing with the Corporate Mentality that Microsoft has embraced?
Hey, they make a decent product in Windows, and even IE has its uses now and then. But when MS constantly messes around with things, never quite hitting on what customers want, despite the quite vocal crowd that has been demanding more for their money, I get the feeling that they just don't care about their customers anymore. This latest version of IE seems to be screaming proof that they are hell-bent on doing what they want to do, and paying customers' needs and desires be hanged.
Once again, though, I must re-stress the fact that I have NOT installed this product for review. I will NOT do so, because I don't want to be forced into a reformat. My install could pass authentication (and already has for a patch I downloaded), but I won't walk out on a limb for the sake of a review that others have already done, using my primary machine. No way. Not with the track record these MS "upgrades" have had thus far.
My article was intended to be a digest of what I've read, nothing more.
Now quit getting uppity at some guy on the Internet and go get drunk, will you? As a matter of fact, send me an email, and we'll hook up. I'll buy you a round, and we can get sloshed together and lament our lives in a world where we have enough spare time to bitch about some product we (or at least I) don't even use.
Cheers! :)
Post a Comment
Well, I do recall stating that:
1) "In light of all of the troubles that IE has wrought during my online journeys, I will withhold spewing any of my admittedly tainted judgements forth, at least for the moment, and simply present you, dear reader, with a short list of pros and cons about this new IE release, and let you make your own call"
and
2) "Now, the first thing that I noticed when looking over screenshots and reading reviews for this product..."
I thought I had made it pretty clear that this was an OPINION, made on the basis of reviews presented by folks who took the chance of "upgrading" to a product that stood a good chance of breaking a perfectly good Windows install, and posted their observations. Think I'm exaggerating about an MS upgrade breaking an install? Service Pack 2 anyone? 'Nuff said.
It was simply my intent to provide another possible avenue for readers to get some info on the product.
My description of IE7's .png support being clunky and rough goes hand in hand with it's already well-known tendency to be a memory-hog. Sure, .png files display perfectly fine, but scroll the webpage, and the image "jerks" its way to follow the page. That, in my OPINION, is clunky and rough.
-- "Are you kidding me? If they ever got busted leeching data from their customers, MS would be in the deepest shit EVER by the government. That would be breaking 123,990,992 privacy laws! Give me a break."
Right. So are you telling me that there isn't a website out there that doesn't already track their users through the use of cookies? Are you saying that MS simply takes the registration info it gets from its users and just stuffs it away somewhere, never to be seen again? Right. Also, you're putting words in my mouth and generalizing to an extreme. I never made a single mention of MS possibly violating personal privacy. I simply speculated about what *else* their "new and improved" browser might be collecting about the user as he/she goes about his/her web travels. It's a well-known fact that there IS no privacy on the web unless you're an uber-paranoid nerd hell-bent on web anonymity tools. People submit their personal info, including credit card and social security info, over the web every minute of every day. News stories are constantly coming over the wire about companies selling their customer databases, and major credit card companies "losing track" of hundreds of card numbers on discs. If the data is offered up, someone's going to make use of it. Any seasoned web programmer knows that a LOT of information can be gleaned from data as simple as an IP address.
-- "How is it "evident" that a stupid search feature needs "tweaking"? "
Not being much of an RSS user myself, I can't offer too much more detail than was offered in the reviews I read. Please remember that my post in no way reflects my personal conclusions. It is simply a digest of what I've read from others' experiences with the product. If you would be so kind as to do more than skim the article, you might find the links to the articles I originally read at the bottom.
-- "Give me a break. Are you serious? Youre obviously trying to hide the fact youre pissed off because youre going to have to eventually pay for your pirated version of windows. If you dont like it, use linux or buy a mac and quit complaining."
There's that generalization again. What did anything I say have to do with pirated copies? It's a well-known fact that SP2 will NOT install on many big-box machines (Dell, HP, Compaq etc) unless it's already embedded in the installation media. So in essence, if I'm one of those people that can't upgrade to SP2, EVEN WITH A LEGIT LICENSE, then I'm STILL stuck buying a new copy with SP2 included, simply to have USB2.0 and Firewire support. Nice.
So, I'm Joe Customer, I've shown my good faith in MS by purchasing a copy of Windows XP Pro (no service packs), and installed, only to discover later that I need SP2 to support some cool hardware I got for Christmas. Go to install the patch, wait about 30 minutes for the download and install to complete, only to find my installation has been rendered useless, and nothing will fix it short of a full format. So, I call MS to ask about how to get my legit copy upgraded.
"Buy the version with SP2 already on it" is the reply.
"Do I get a discount because this is your fault to begin with?"
"No. You can buy a new copy now, or wait for the patch to be released."
So, I can spend another $100+ for another copy, or I wait to use my shiny new external hard drive until they patch the patch?
Well, to the surprise of those that DID wait, they attempted to install the new patch, with the same results.
Do you see what I'm getting at here? IE7 will force you to upgrade to SP2 and force you to re-authenticate your copy again. If you're one of the lucky original customers who bought Windows XP circa pre-SP2, you run a double risk when trying to upgrade IE. The first is that their new authentication process suddenly forgets that you're a legit customer and denies you the upgrade. The second is when it tries to force SP2 down your throat, and your whole Windows installation is destroyed.
Why would I, as a paying customer, go through that stress, just to get the features in a browser that are already available, and have BEEN available for a while, in Firefox?
Again, 'nuff said.
Oh, by the way, I DO use Linux when I need to do some serious work on a computer, beyond playing games or messing around with novelty programs. Debian's a wonderful thing. You should try it sometime!
-- "But the REAL reason IE7 does not have true CSS2 support yet is because they stated it would require a complete rebuild of the IE rendering engine, and theres no way they could do that before their expe cted launch date of the software. Thats business. I know youre going to start bitching and say "but but but they SHOULD have it!" yes they should, but they dont. They noted that they intend to support it in the near future, but its not a viable business decision at this point. Im a web developer and Id LOVE to see it, and although it irritates me that they dont have it yet, it makes no sense to bitch about it.. its their software.. they can do what they want."
Yes, Netscape started that whole thing, and where's Netscape now? Still second fiddle, and falling behind rapidly, but, as you said, that's beside the point.
Yes, true CSS2 support WOULD require a complete rebuild of the engine. I'm playing the world's tiniest violin right now, can you hear it? If they were worried about making the expected release date, why did they bother announcing the release date until they could nail down the features that they KNEW their users truly wanted in a browser? It needs a rebuild? DO IT!
Or, could this whole thing be related to the fact that they have NEVER truly done what was needed long ago, and simply added kludge upon kludge, hacking together something passable enough to appease the masses, instead of truly innovating and creating something that would be rock-solid secure. You must realize that most of the security holes in Windows are stemming directly from IE, and it's tight integration with Windows itself. Why wouldn't they simply re-write the thing if it's proving to be so buggy and risky? (I say "simply" but I know it's no mean feat. I still say "tough noogies" to the programmers whining about how long it would take).
I'm getting off-track here. Listen, CSS2 has been solidified as a standard by W3C, as you yourself have affirmed. If that's the case, why would MS choose to constantly deny that there even WAS any standard but their own until now?
More to the point, why is MS talking about that support in future versions? IE7 was supposed to be THE LAST major version released, whereupon they would settle on the task of solidifying the browser's stability and security. Oops. Guess that was another one of those statements that "leaked out" before they were ready to issue it.
Look, I feel MS' stance on needing to re-write the engine to decode CSS2 code is more of a PR ploy than actuality. They need as many excuses as they can find to get the public to accept yet another version down the road. They did the same thing with Longhorn (oops, I mean Vista) already. It was touted as the last major Windows version ever. Then, they started backpedaling on the release dates. Then they started pulling out features that people were most excited about. For example, Unix-style command line functionality. Not in Vista anymore, but hey! You can buy it separately! Wow, what a deal!
Also, a truly journaling filesystem that would make searching for files an incredibly fast affair, not to mention greatly reduced fragmentation. They pulled that one too, and then dropped their bombshell.
"We will be introducing that particular feature over the course of the next few major versions of Windows."
What?! Well, I should have seen that one coming. Now they have left the door open to continue releasing major versions, despite their previous press releases to the contrary.
Well, anyhow, it's not like I'm trying to find excuses to be pissed off at "The Man". First, there is no "The Man", and second, I don't need to find excuses. They are giving me plenty all on their own.
Why would I ever want to upgrade their IE browser when it stands a good chance of being another software lemon, and many other browsers can give me every bit (and more) of the useability I expect on today's World Wide Web, all without the repeated hassles of dealing with the Corporate Mentality that Microsoft has embraced?
Hey, they make a decent product in Windows, and even IE has its uses now and then. But when MS constantly messes around with things, never quite hitting on what customers want, despite the quite vocal crowd that has been demanding more for their money, I get the feeling that they just don't care about their customers anymore. This latest version of IE seems to be screaming proof that they are hell-bent on doing what they want to do, and paying customers' needs and desires be hanged.
Once again, though, I must re-stress the fact that I have NOT installed this product for review. I will NOT do so, because I don't want to be forced into a reformat. My install could pass authentication (and already has for a patch I downloaded), but I won't walk out on a limb for the sake of a review that others have already done, using my primary machine. No way. Not with the track record these MS "upgrades" have had thus far.
My article was intended to be a digest of what I've read, nothing more.
Now quit getting uppity at some guy on the Internet and go get drunk, will you? As a matter of fact, send me an email, and we'll hook up. I'll buy you a round, and we can get sloshed together and lament our lives in a world where we have enough spare time to bitch about some product we (or at least I) don't even use.
Cheers! :)
<< Home
