Internet Explorer 7.0

[EugenyG]

In the release version of Windows Vista, sometimes in 2006, a new versionof IE will be released -- 7.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't know any details about it, but maybe some of you do. Anyone knows what new featuers it will have? At least according to Microsoft IE7 will focus on security, so it's be interesting to know if it will be able to sort out it's current problems and security-wise match FF or other browsers.

[Mercifull]

They wont be providing it for Pre XP pc's i see. So Win 98/ME and 2000 will lose out.

[battletrax]

Microsoft says lots of things, but I really doubt IE7 will be much different from IE6. The real security problem isn't with the browser. It's with their security team who patches flaws months after they're found.

 

 

 

And on a sidenote, it may not be called windows vista :) Stupid ms forgetting to check with the copyright office lol

[Bmw]

battletrax I haven't heard of the issues with the Vista name? Not on the news at all, at least not anything on google.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, Windows Vista beta 1 released today? Whoa! It was set to release August 3rd, but released today instead! Anyone here know anyone whos testing?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, all I know about IE7 is tabbed browsing, following the success of it with Firefox and Opera. Lol. Also, security is a huuuge thing for IE 7! Yay!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Found this on Pc Magazine:

 

 

 

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1840714,00.asp

 

 

 

:P

[Ryan]

battletrax I haven't heard of the issues with the Vista name? Not on the news at all, at least not anything on google.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, Windows Vista beta 1 released today? Whoa! It was set to release August 3rd, but released today instead! Anyone here know anyone whos testing?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, all I know about IE7 is tabbed browsing, following the success of it with Firefox and Opera. Lol. Also, security is a huuuge thing for IE 7! Yay!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's going to be a huge thing on "omg IE has tabbed browsing, it's the coolest thing evar!!" FF and Opera have had it..."like so, I don't liek them"

[runesmithie]

Microsoft says lots of things, but I really doubt IE7 will be much different from IE6. The real security problem isn't with the browser. It's with their security team who patches flaws months after they're found.

 

 

 

And on a sidenote, it may not be called windows vista :) Stupid ms forgetting to check with the copyright office lol

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd have to put my finger on the whole integration with all those other programs (and OS)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now if it was completely stand-alone...

[Eeeeediot]

I will be interested to see the CSS cmpatibility of IE7 compared to FF and Opera, namely if they'll have up to CSS 2.0 and perhaps 3.0 if theres a miracle.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One things for sure, a lot of web designers and coders are going to have to update their code that had workarounds for the numerous bugs of IE6. Should be interesting. :)

[Phil]

Yeah it'll be interesting to see what it's like, but will anyone of you be switching from FF/Opera to go and use IE7?

 

 

 

I doubt I will. I'm used to having everything I need in FF now :P

[Mercifull]

MS would never release a browser that breaks existing IE6 working code. Which is why the program will undoubtedly still break all proper standards and only comply to its own. :(

[PhrstBrn]

battletrax I haven't heard of the issues with the Vista name? Not on the news at all, at least not anything on google.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a small software company called Vista [vista.com] who is complaining about copyright of "Vista".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to Story: Seattle Times

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whether or not this will go anywhere, I don't know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On another note:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Windows is known to make great secure and compatible software. IE7 should be more compatible with other standards (CSS/JavaScript) and be more secure, blocking more spyware then ever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately, I don't believe Microsoft is going to dish out any money to improve IE when the can repackage what they have already and make more money.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Microsoft isn't very innovative, and doesn't care too much about security in their products. The problem is, people are buying Windows (and in large numbers), so why should they care? Why spend extra money to make something better when you can just sit back and watch the cash flow in?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't see Microsoft doing anything exciting in the near future. People will have to stop buying Windows before Microsoft does anything.

[EugenyG]

Something you guys don't realize.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, Windows is buggy. Yes, it glithes. Yes, it has security holes larger than the holes in my pants after 2 weeks of mountainclimbing. Yes, it has unwieldy code and ultraproprietary attitude to any outside development. But there is one single thing that overrides all that and more when it comes to sales. Windows has a good feature: ANY MORON CAN USE IT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It doesn't matter how innovative, flexible, sophisticated or secure are alternatives. Until someone develops an os that is AS DUMBFOUNDLY EASY to install and use as Windows, and is as DUMBFOUNDLY AUTOMATED FOR THE TASKS 90% OF USERS (READ NON-EXPERTS) use them for, Windows will remain a monopoly (with all mentioned consequences).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's also the reason why people like AOL so much. The soccer moms and sunday-newspaper-dads value smilie faces and nice sound effects more than compatibility, features, or (until recently) security (which somewhat changed only because of the media attention of stolen identities and such, and naturally only then got MS off their [wagon] to at least start fixing their holes).

[EugenyG]

doublepost, sry

[Looce]

WebCT, a company that makes software for schools, also has a product named WebCT Vista. I don't know if that's copyrighted however.

[PhrstBrn]

Something you guys don't realize.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, Windows is buggy. Yes, it glithes. Yes, it has security holes larger than the holes in my pants after 2 weeks of mountainclimbing. Yes, it has unwieldy code and ultraproprietary attitude to any outside development. But there is one single thing that overrides all that and more when it comes to sales. Windows has a good feature: ANY MORON CAN USE IT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It doesn't matter how innovative, flexible, sophisticated or secure are alternatives. Until someone develops an os that is AS DUMBFOUNDLY EASY to install and use as Windows, and is as DUMBFOUNDLY AUTOMATED FOR THE TASKS 90% OF USERS (READ NON-EXPERTS) use them for, Windows will remain a monopoly (with all mentioned consequences).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's also the reason why people like AOL so much. The soccer moms and sunday-newspaper-dads value smilie faces and nice sound effects more than compatibility, features, or (until recently) security (which somewhat changed only because of the media attention of stolen identities and such, and naturally only then got MS off their wagon to at least start fixing their holes).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If that was the case, everybody would be buying a Mac instead.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Too much money and software is already invested in Windows. Recoding software costs money, and a lot of it. Business cannot afford to recode all their software because they don't want to use Windows anymore. This ends up trickling down to home users.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, Microsoft knows this, and is just looking for ways to make money off their empire.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Being "easy to use" is not the reason why people still use Windows. It's because too much money is in the Windows boat.

[magekillr]

if i could build my own Mac...ida done it already

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and if Mac's wernt so friggan expensive ida had one already...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

then again...was thinking about picking up a G5...

[Eric2203]

Microsoft [...] doesn't care too much about security in their products.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm tired of seeing this security argument when it comes to MS. When are people going to realize that Windows being more unsecure than other OS'es is only a perception created by the larger coverage it gets ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other OS'es have just as many security holes, but nowhere near as famous as the Windows ones. As to whoever said MS doens't patch holes quickly, that's nonsense. In the past 2 years, it's improved a lot: MS rationalized their ratings of vulnerabilities and came out with a monthly cycle of regular updates, with critical updates being rolled out ASAP. Here's an example that affects a lot of us here: the latest vulnerability with the Java VM was fixed 1 day after it was discovered and was rolled out through Windows Update 5 days later. If you absolutely want the patches before they even hit Windows Update, then download Microsoft Baseline Security Anaylzer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because it's fashionable to call MS more unsecure than others doesn't mean it's the truth. If that were the case, you wouldn't have companies running critical servers on Windows. And yes they do. And yes they'd switch in a heartbeat if MS was way more unsecure than others. Money isn't an objection when it comes to critical applications.

[battletrax]

 

Microsoft [...] doesn't care too much about security in their products.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm tired of seeing this security argument when it comes to MS. When are people going to realize that Windows being more unsecure than other OS'es is only a perception created by the larger coverage it gets ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other OS'es have just as many security holes, but nowhere near as famous as the Windows ones. As to whoever said MS doens't patch holes quickly, that's nonsense. In the past 2 years, it's improved a lot: MS rationalized their ratings of vulnerabilities and came out with a monthly cycle of regular updates, with critical updates being rolled out ASAP. Here's an example that affects a lot of us here: the latest vulnerability with the Java VM was fixed 1 day after it was discovered and was rolled out through Windows Update 5 days later. If you absolutely want the patches before they even hit Windows Update, then download Microsoft Baseline Security Anaylzer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because it's fashionable to call MS more unsecure than others doesn't mean it's the truth. If that were the case, you wouldn't have companies running critical servers on Windows. And yes they do. And yes they'd switch in a heartbeat if MS was way more unsecure than others. Money isn't an objection when it comes to critical applications.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really don't think coverage has anything to do with it. I have to concede that a big reason for windows's security problems is the larger number of people trying to find security holes, but that's not the most important problem. MS is still slow at making patches. Just becasue they roll out patches every month doesn't mean that it only takes a month for vulns to be patched... They may be improving, but they started at bad and are moving toward, but still far from, goood. Ever hear of slammer? That HUGE vulnerability was out how many months before it was patched? Microsoft didn't fix it until it was used to take down most of the internet...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And as for companies using windows for mission-critical apps... That's slowly changing. HP recently started using linux for it's NonStop servers, the most important and expensive servers that they produce... And that's just one example that I remembered from the news recently http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?si ... 6&from=rss

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree that it's kind of popular to bash ms's security, but you can't say they don't deserve a lot of it.

[EugenyG]

In RS:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The first person who reached 99 smithing made billions

 

 

 

The tenth person who reached 99 smithing made millions

 

 

 

The 1000'th person who reached 99 smithing made JACK SQUAT.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In RL:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Before Win 95, the market was fairly evenly divided between PC and Apple. At the time only a limited number of people used computers and tehre wasn't nearly as much software, and almost none of the current level of interdependability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Windows was the FIRST to realease a glitchy, buggy, flawed, insecure, but BLOODY SIMPLE OS to use for the masses. And so they won the consumers, and naturally businesses started to adapt all their products to them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And then the ball started ralling. Businesses kept making programs for Windows only, consumers chose Windows, and as greater interdependability and compatibility issues arised (especially with expansion of Internet), a choice of a SINGLE OS became critical. That OS became Windows. The market level passed the Point of No Return when it comes to platform of choice, and Microsoft became a standard.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After that, nothing really matters. MS controls the market, and as far as I can envision into the future, this is the way it will stay REGARDLESS of who makes what and how.

[Eric2203]

 

 

Microsoft [...] doesn't care too much about security in their products.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm tired of seeing this security argument when it comes to MS. When are people going to realize that Windows being more unsecure than other OS'es is only a perception created by the larger coverage it gets ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other OS'es have just as many security holes, but nowhere near as famous as the Windows ones. As to whoever said MS doens't patch holes quickly, that's nonsense. In the past 2 years, it's improved a lot: MS rationalized their ratings of vulnerabilities and came out with a monthly cycle of regular updates, with critical updates being rolled out ASAP. Here's an example that affects a lot of us here: the latest vulnerability with the Java VM was fixed 1 day after it was discovered and was rolled out through Windows Update 5 days later. If you absolutely want the patches before they even hit Windows Update, then download Microsoft Baseline Security Anaylzer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because it's fashionable to call MS more unsecure than others doesn't mean it's the truth. If that were the case, you wouldn't have companies running critical servers on Windows. And yes they do. And yes they'd switch in a heartbeat if MS was way more unsecure than others. Money isn't an objection when it comes to critical applications.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really don't think coverage has anything to do with it. I have to concede that a big reason for windows's security problems is the larger number of people trying to find security holes, but that's not the most important problem. MS is still slow at making patches. Just becasue they roll out patches every month doesn't mean that it only takes a month for vulns to be patched... They may be improving, but they started at bad and are moving toward, but still far from, goood. Ever hear of slammer? That HUGE vulnerability was out how many months before it was patched? Microsoft didn't fix it until it was used to take down most of the internet...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And as for companies using windows for mission-critical apps... That's slowly changing. HP recently started using linux for it's NonStop servers, the most important and expensive servers that they produce... And that's just one example that I remembered from the news recently http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?si ... 6&from=rss

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree that it's kind of popular to bash ms's security, but you can't say they don't deserve a lot of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I emphasized a sentence in your post. The reason ? Because I never said that. What I was trying to say was that the one-month cycle guarantees you some patching as opposed to a "when-we-fee-like-it" approach. Of course, some vulnerabilities may take more than a month. I can't say I check anymore. But when I did (and that was months ago), it took them less than a month to patch. Far from a month even.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, slammer was a long time ago. I believe that's part of what pushed them into doing things better too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some companied switch to Unix/Linux. Some switch to Windows. It's also fashionable to report on Microsoft's losses, rather than the other way around. ;) Perhaps sales would be more meaningful. Regardless, it seems MS reputation on the subject is going up rather than down. It's well known they used to run their own website off a Linux server. :P Obviously they switched when people found out, but anyway, they advertize Windows 2k3 server with emphasis on security, and you don't make these kind of claims lightly for a product aimed at IT specialists and business use. They'd be laughed at all the way out the door of companies if it turned out to be as full of holes as swiss cheese. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT: almost forgot. EugenyG, MS "domination" started before Windows 95.

[Karvinen]

IE has some security holes that are features, such as ActiveX (simple "yes" click can run an executable program) and browser helper objects (can be used to bypass firewall).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Viruses

 

 

 

Infections

 

 

 

Spyware

 

 

 

Trojans

 

 

 

Adware

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:lol: :lol:

[Bmw]

^ lol funny. Well, has anyone tried out IE7 yet? I dled Beta, and from the average user stand point, its a nicer looking interface change. I dunno the security details, as I'm no expert. But I guess thats why these things were out in beta for...experts lol. Oh well, still nice to give it a sneek peak during beta anyways, nothing better to do. It's a nice alternative to Opera to say the least. Whenever Opera won't load something, I'll prob open IE now, rather than having all Opera, IE and Firefox installed.

[____]

I still can't work out which fool decided it would be good design to put the tabs ABOVE the file menu :-?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You better be able to swap them in cofiguration, otherwise i'll have to slap someone down.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@Bmw: Can you do that ^?

[Mercifull]

I still can't work out which fool decided it would be good design to put the tabs ABOVE the file menu :-?

 

 

 

You better be able to swap them in cofiguration, otherwise i'll have to slap someone down.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe you cant in the beta but im sure you can in the full version. You can move around all the toolbars and stuff in IE6 so I dont see why they would lock down that feature in IE7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some pics of some lame IE7 aspects lol...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File menu BELOW the tabs. rofl.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weird empty tab thing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

bad colouring

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It does however have PNG alpha support. Yay :D

[Bmw]

Can I swap the file menu? Nope. Its quite ugly having the file bar below the adress bar, maybe Microsoft thinks they're being original or something :lol: (lol).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for Merc's pics, the blank mini tab next to the reg is fine with me, its just the new page tab anyways. Doesnt bother me. What annoys me is the small home button, and the back and forward buttons at the top left. I swear I couldn't find the back button. I was so mad too. Lol. Cause I looked and saw the home button, and there was no back button around there. Only stupid useless things like Research and Discuss. Eww.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But if they make it so we can swap bars around to how we want it, that would be ideal. I'm almost certain it'll happen in the final release. 1 more thing to add, I previously had a Windows blind theme installed, Dogmax to be exact, and IE7 didnt function properly. It gave me black areas around the adress bar, as if it wasnt loaded properly? Is this because the skin doesn't know how to theme IE7? Or that IE7 has no support for the skin? I dunno. But I changed back to the default Windows XP blue, and it works great now.

[____]

WindowBlinds probably didn't know how to skin MS's pos interface :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If I were to apply the PARC principles to it, it'd fail without a problem.

 

 

 

It's a bloody joke :-?