If IE gets tabs, mouse gestures, and something as good as the Adblock extenstion I'll switch back from FF.

I have been using IE since the begining... I also keep logs of 37 web sites, all of which keeps logs of lots of things including % of which browser are being used on each of these sites. Not to knock you FireFox users (I have like 6 different web browsers installed on my system), but 91% of the web surfers that visit these sites are IE users from there it's all kinds different web browsers including: FireFox; NetScape; MYIE; Opera; Web TV and the list goes on...

So overall it looks like IE is still out there and it's not just because I choose to continue to use it. My biggest complaint and the only real reason I don't choose FireFox or many other browsers is the lack of CSS support by them, I like the Eye Candy that CSS has to offer, such as the pretty coloured scroll bars... You get these browser 100% supporting the CSS that IE supports and hey I would probably jump the fence too or at least take a closer look at the other browsers for full time use.

colored scroll bar support is more important than a functional browser? nice priorities bub.

"the only real reason I don't choose FireFox or many other browsers is the lack of CSS support by them."

If this were Slashdot, you'd get modded +5 Funny. Congratulations.

Have you tried to compare the CSS support of Firefox vs. IE? You'd find that Firefox wins hands down, no competition. What. So. Ever.

Colored scroll bars aren't part of any CSS standard, and they're certainly not anything essential. Plus, they belong to the user's *browser* (or operating system), not to the Web page author. I guarantee this is the ONLY thing you will EVER find that IE "supports" and Firefox does not, but even then, it's not a standard, nor is it widely used, and neither is it important. I don't see a reason to support this "feature", and neither did they.

(By the way, with themes, the *user* can customize his or her browser however he or she wants, as can he or she with OS themes in OSes that support them and in themes in which native drawing is used.)

Not that it matters but I have a little tool I found several years back that lets me modify my tool bar - it's called Toolbar Wallpaper, but that's besides the point and that point being is the server logs... @ 91% being IE users or at least on my server that's what the logs read.

Note to FF users... Firefox, Mozilla, Opera struck by spoofing flaw

http://www.itworldcanada...-471c-b2e3-15dc9e375079

IE is my personal choice... I bet you drive a Ford too... hehe :o) J/k Any way... Like I siad IE is my choice, netscape and the others are all ok if you like them... I don't worry about my surfing habits because I mostly only visit the same regular sites day in day out such as Beta News, or SnapFiles, MajorGeeks... and lots of other tech sites. Plus I sort of know what I am doing on computers I had one since 1984 like a third arm.

Hmm, it works both ways. I had just finished off a web design exersize a little while back and I was veiwing it in firefox as I was designing. When I had finished I figured I had better check it in IE. Imagine my surprise when IE messed up the sizes of all of my tables.

Looks like IE is not as standard as it is thought to be. This is the trouble, other browsers use the same standards, set by w3c. Microsft on the other hand seem to have decided that they are above such standards and make their own. As a web designer, this causes no end of problems because, with the growing popularity of firefox, it is becoming more and more important to have cross-browser functionality.

It shouldn't matter which browser people use but because of IEs lack of conformism it does.

I will switch back to IE only if Microsoft they introduce the proper w3c standards into the browser and then add features such as tabbed browsing, while still keeping the layout of the browser window simple and easy to use.

That is all.

People who sit and argue about what browser they use like its a religion are retards.

"FireFox RULEZ! IE DROOLZ!!" Gimme a break.

Use the browser you prefer and just shut the crap up...

I have heard more interesting debates from two 5 year olds fighting about a Tonka truck...

Heh.. so true. This whole battle between which browser is better is completely rediculous sometimes.

There is no perfect browser, nor will there ever be one.

Here's my two cents:
Internet Explorer has it's share of security flaws but the loading of pages is faster than that of Firefox. The rendering engine Firefox uses isn't quite so fast plus pages don't quite always load right in Firefox so I find it quite annoying when a page looks all messed up.. showing just how much Internet Explorer is used.

Personally, I think it's wonderful Microsoft is doing something about this. They are an excellent competitor out in the world and have a lot of power. They are very busy people.. and are put in the spotlight often (maybe more than needed..).

If they put antispyware and antivirus protection free into IE 7 and the security is decent.. I will use it. Microsoft is doing a lot more now.. maybe because, believe it or not, they do care about their customers [and they charge enough for their software as is..].

Please.. don't make yourself sound stupid. Listen to other people's opinions and you might actually learn something.

Tonka RULEZ man!

.....I absolutely damn well knew it!! There was no good reason to hold off releasing a new version of IE. Gary Schare's comments, (Director of Windows Product Management), that no standalone release of IE would be available until the release of Longhorn, were a complete load of crap then and remain a complete load of crap to this day. "Increased security threats and an eroding market share following the launch of Mozilla Firefox" are exactly the reasons why I knew the decision would be reversed and I feel vindicated. IE7 should be made available to Windows 2000 (it'd be silly not to), but thank God common sense has won the day!

And if anyone from MS reads this - for Gods sake please rewrite IE from the ground up 'as much as you can' while still keeping it compatible with Windows XP and Windows 2000. The fact that Gary Schare uses Maxathon as an interface for IE says an awful lot about the current state of the IE interface.

Your obviously not a software developer, a ground up re-write of IE is not a small task, you could not expect to see anything for serveral years, even with Microsoft's resources.

Let be real here, IE is not a bad browser, it's stable and secure (if you disable ActiveX scripting). With these settings changed, it's secure as firefox and faster too..

'Your obviously not a software developer, a ground up re-write of IE is not a small task, you could not expect to see anything for serveral years, even with Microsoft's resources.'

Crap. I said 'as much as you can' meaning make as many alterations & improvements as possible within the given timeframe. The fact that an updated version of IE is being developed for Longhorn would provide a basis. (And your is spelt you're).

I'm the technology coordinator at a high school. Next year Firefox will be installed on all computers. Faculty, staff, and students will use FF. If I could I would delete IE completely off of the system.

You can but of course then you couldn't run windows update.

Delete IE off the system? Impossible to have a working system that way. Windows Explorer and even My Computer use the IE browser, click my computer, add the address bar if it is not already there, then type www.betanews.com --there's IE.

nLite

http://nuhi.msfn.org/

He knows you can't delete it, he's just saying if he COULD, he'd delete it.

Would like to hear your reasoning WHY you want to get rid of IE and install Firefox.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21166

You be better off sending a group policy to disable Active Scripting and only allowing signed Active X controls.

:: Twiighlight Zone Theme Plays ::

Are you guys living in a dreamworld of some sort? I mean with all due respect. IE is a piece of CRAP. Always was, and perhaps, may stay that way forever. FireFox is king. It IS more secure, the interface and usability IS in plain sight BETTER. It's just all around better and once again IE is a highly targeted piece of JUNK. Millions of man-hours went into creating and "upgrading" and "securing" IE and still it's worthless. It's not "trendy" to bash IE, you guys are misinterpreting "truth", with "bashing".

I don't know about IE7 but if the trend is any indication, it will suck just as bad. Exploit's anywone?

Too bad it has a memory leak too. Not to mention that when it does have security issues they are too dumb to releases fixes but make you wait until the next release, Hopefully you aren't using paypal with it...lol

Firefox is just a BETA....it does not support many multimedia sites, and is just another diversion for Microsoft haters. Just like winamp, Firefox will doe away due to lack of interest. Opera is a much better choice as an alternative browser anyway. Get a life.

That's right, cause if you do have paypal and actively use IE, chances are some scumbag Romanian career theif working out of some forien country (anyone except their own) like Greece or Spain or Germany, has got YOUR number. ;)

Firefox is not a beta, it hit 1.0 some time back. Even when it was Pheonix 0.2 or whatever it was still better than IE though.

Hey Moron...any software product that is open source or opewn anything is a BETA meaning it can and will be altered multiple times. Firefox's graphical rendering engine is a joke, cant handle simple flash animations. Who cares about a browser anyway..you people need lives...go take a shower or something..jesus...

Seems it's trendy these days to use Firefox and bash Microsoft/IE.

For me, IE outperforms FF in speed, features and intuitiveness, with ActiveX disabled, it's just as secure, if not MORE secure than FF.

For any idiots still claiming that FF is a faster browser, do some research, there are plenty of javascript based browser benchmarks, and IE whips FF in pretty much all of them.

As for rendering engine, lets not forget Mozilla rendering engine is very old also, it came from Netscape 4 browser...

yeah, google is making a bad investment, hiring those FireFox gurus ha ha *not!*

I am sorry for you, but one day you will be loved. Plus, it's nice to have an updated, awesome browser that works natively on Linux, Mac, and Win, as I run all 3.

Mozilla's rendering engine not in any way based on Netscape 4, it is a completely new implementation. Mozilla may be a bit slower in rendering, but it loads and displays websites much earlier than IE which makes a big difference. Firefox is also much more extensible, just have a look here:
https://update.mozilla.org/

Actually, I use Linux alot also, and am currently posting this from Firefox on Linux, but when I run Windows, IE is simply a better browser.

I just hope there is tabbed browsing!

Sign me up baby! I'll be one of the first ones in the queue. No matter the why/who/what/where behind the strategy change...this is good news.

Sign me up too! I've used Firefox. *Gags* They need to come up with some better color codes. I've used IE forever and never have gotten any spyware just from IE, it's what YOU download from ANY browser to get spyware.

"I've used IE forever and never have gotten any spyware just from IE, it's what YOU download from ANY browser to get spyware."

Ha! That's absolutely LAUGHABLE. It's not "YOU" who gets spyware. First off, a great deal of spyware comes from ActiveX objects, which aren't even available in Mozilla without an extension.

Secondly, IE code, until recently, allowed popups and popunders which often executed lots of questionable javascript. In Firefox, you can disallow certain javascript functions like window resizing to allow a better browsing experiences.

And lastly, Firefox's extensions allow you to add extra protection from advertising and third party crap. For example, by simply "ad-block'ing" http://*intellitxt*, I NEVER see those annoying underlined ads in my browser, which betanews itself uses!

IE can't match up without a third party add-on. If you are just USED TO Internet Explorer, that's fine, but please don't pretend that it's not absolutely RIDDLED with security holes.

personally, until microsoft complies with the now 5 year old + concent decree from the us supreme court, I will be forced to use ie to "browse" my computer but that is all. I presonally dislike the fact that if IE goes to a website and crashes or freezes, there goes my desktop and possibly a reboot. I prefer the independance of if the browser crashes thats all that crashes. regenerating desktops and reopening all the open folders is NOT my idea of a better way to handle things.
as far as speed? yes, firefox is much faster. try running latest IE and latest firefox on a pII 450 with a 16 meg video card and you will rapidly grow to appreciate not having to spawn a whole new instance of a bloated browser to view each site. the tabbed inbterface takes up a sooo much smaller fingerprint.

I wondered how long ol Billy Bob would wait before he responded to Firefox, guess his market share finally eroded far enough. All of you naysayers about Firefox take note. Miscrospud is tacitly admitting that the Fox is a better browser.

...Miscrospud is tacitly admitting that the Fox is a better browser.

no they're not. they're just admitting that it is a viable competitor. they did admit that Safari was the better browser in the Mac market, and dropped their product there.

That doesn't sound right... how would it go, something like this:

Mac has a better browser than ours, we should provide ours to mac, so all those that want a lesser browser than safari can have ours.

I think he meant that Microsoft said it would no longer update IE5 for Mac. Because Safari did the job, and Microsoft needed to focus elsewhere. IE5 for Mac is extremely outdated at this point with no further changes planned.

thanks nate, exactly what i meant. MS realized that Apple could better support their own community with a browser and decided not to bother with the fight. regardless of product quality, Mac users tend to prefer Apple's software (which more often than not is better anyway.)

What amazes me is that ol' William acknowledged that IE has become a security risk. For a bright man, he sure does react slow. A lot of people have been saying this for sometime, not just with the development of Firefox. I 100% believe that Mozilla & OSS has Micro$oft running scared!

Ah, It all makes sense now, sorry for the confusion.
Sincere thanks: nate and yohimbe9.

What fools.

They're just afraid that Firefox is going to smash their browser. I will not use IE anymore. It's garbage. Firefox all the way.

I've been using IE for years without a single problem...it's faster than Firefox, no question. If ya think otherwise then you're delusional. If you're looking for a plethora of extensions then go with Firefox...otherwise it's slow browser.

Trust me, unless MS has some serious setbacks (Bill Gates dies, etc.), FireFox will be the second most used browser. Heck, according to the polls it is still about only 10%-12% of the market, IE has 86%-88%. That's still a huge difference.

I don't know what computer you're running, but on every computer I admister, Firefox is faster in everything but first load.

It loads pages faster, it loads new tech pages correctly (IE doesn't - half the time it just craps out), and it loads everything I ask it to without hesitation.

"If ya think otherwise then you're delusional"

You're confused. The only reason IE appears to be fast is because most of the components were tacitly loaded when you logged into Windows. You're using CPU cycles on IE by simply BOOTING into Windows.

Firefox has to run on its own. If Firefox were to pre-load at boot time, it would be noticeably faster too.

Unfortunately, we're really talking about rendering time, which IE SUCKS at. If things are in a huge table, nothing else is rendered until the table in complete. Sh*t, Google wrote their maps.google.com using iframes just to avoid the whole rendering fiasco!

Not only that but Firefox doesn't give you some meaningless script error message on every third web page you bring up.

IE was the browser to use... 6 years ago. Since then it's only offered security problems and has had no significant UI improvements since version 4. MS beat Netscape at their game, but didn't bother to maintain their technical and performance lead. Furthermore, all the complete ineptness with regard to security for the last 12 years or so that Internet usage has been significant has caught up with Microsoft. They can't offer anything new since they are too busy fixing problems and loading up Windows with more bloat that one in one hundred users (if that) will find useful.

Meanwhile, FireFox has taken an attitude that Microsoft hasn't had for 20 years or more. Making lean, efficient code that does what people want, rather than just fulfilling some marketing droids checklist of buzzwords. Believe it or not, not every single application on your system needs to be bloated up into a development environment capable of kernel-level access to your whole system. If MS could focus on one or two really useful technologies instead of two dozen half-assed ones, Windows would be so much better to use.

Remember back in the mid 90s when a 1GB hard drive was big enough to hold windows, office, a few games and other applications, with 600MB free for documents and pictures?

Now, it's not even enough to load windows by itself...

FF = 4.6mb
IE = 50+ mb

See what the precentage is going to be by the time IE7b is released ... I'll bet it is close to 25% ... and that is HUGE in 6 months!

I can't agree with sethadam1's reply more. I'll admit firefox takes longer to load on inital startup. but like sethadam1 said, it because it is not set to load with windows where IE is, so it will be slower. Weather or not you'd like your browser to load with windows is your personal preference, but both IE and FF don't give you the choice (that I'm aware of).

fact: There isn't much of a speed difference between the two, unless you are on dialup!
- IE re-downloads webpages, always.
- FF will store VISITED webpages on your hard drive, making them appear to download much, much faster. I assume you either have never tried FF or you did, but you don't have dialup internet. I dont have dialup anymore, but I used FireFox when I did, and there was a HUGE difference.

I really don't think you see all that FireFox has done. This is not something you test for an hour and decide wheather it's better or not. You cannot go from using 1 browser for years and another for an hour and make a judgement. I personally didn't care too much for FireFox at first, but I was open to trying new things, and now that i've been using it strictly, I get used to it and say no way am i going back to IE! Mozilla will rule all.

For years and years and years we have complained about pop-up ads and embedded ads, and for years MS has not supported pop-up blocking, you had to have a sepparate program rather than integration with MS and their browser.

I really don't think you realize the main differences between FF and IE that make FF so much better. Hell, I didn't realize some of them until i bought FF's guide, and that was just for the heck of it.

IE, sometimes people must settle for less...

"You're confused. The only reason IE appears to be fast is because most of the components were tacitly loaded when you logged into Windows"

Right about IE, wrong about FF! FireFox loads modules at startup too--only for Windows XP that is. Ever heard of "C:\Windows\Prefetch" folder before? It loads 'threads' for Firefox, and for about 99% of all other apps designed for Windows XP. It's that darn Prefetch folder that keeps viruses loading even when disabling startup with msconfig.exe...a different subject though

It depends. If IE has all "Browser Add-Ons" disabled it is faster than FF, your network takes long with IE because there's all that cr@p loading with it. There is no true proof either way, there's no perfect software, no test that proves one is faster than the other. The funny thing is--Firefox started out as an alternative to IE, but now everyone wants IE to die. Frankly, it would be in most consumer's best interest to have both browsers constantly head-and-toe, something like AMD vs. Intel; that way both browsers would constantly strive to be better. Hey, Microsoft is making a better browser ahead of schedule (or trying to make a better browser, for you MS haters out there) mostly because of FireFox gaining ground. It's no secret that I use IE over FireFox, but this is a good thing. Maybe...just maybe...Windows 2000 will be able to use IE 7 because of Firefox. In that way I'm sort of glad FireFox is around.

Sure IE 7 will be for XP only, nothing for those who run Windows2000. Talk about gypped. Thank goodness I'm on firefox now.

IE7 will use a lot of the features included in SP2 for XP. so to port it to 2K would require porting a lot of the SP2 to 2K as well and that would be a large undertaking. also, this is most a consumer push than business push, and in the consumer space you've got 98/ME/XP, the latter of which is the only one they're developing for. while some people did use 2K at home (me included), that is a vast minority and mostly techy people (or people in touch with techy people). 2K will get screwed over a lot more, especially with the avalon push, just as NT4 got it in the past. now that MS finally has a fairly unified code base with XP/2003 we'll finally have a consumer market that's in sync with the business market.

It's always amusing to see the results of any MS announcement. First you'll have the trendy anti-MS naysayers (you know, the ones without two braincells to rub together who spout anto-MS rhetoric without knowing why), the die-hard zealots who feel that MS is the Anti-Christ (some will have braincells and valid reasons, some won't) and the ones who speak before thinking (assuming they're even capable of analysis). Then you'll have the ones who actually avaluate the announcement for what it's actually worth.

In this particular case, looking up and down this thread, we have the "rah rah" rabble screaming "Firefox Forever" because it's the darling of the media these days or because they buy into the overhyped security risk stuff. The former are kind of the computer equivalent of Gwen Stefani's "Harajuku Girls". You have some who acknowledge that alternate choices are for them because of technological limitations (read: users of earlier platforms) and also those who actually take a look at the situation and evaluate it in level headed fashion.

My view?

I think it's a positive thing, I understand why earlier platforms won't have support for it and why they shouldn't be retrofitted and also know that it's likely not for me because at this time I refuse to run SP2 for reasons I consider valid (I don't think it's cooked yet). However, it will be interesting to see what the beta brings.

Oh, and for the record:

I *won't* be running Firefox instead. :)

So you seem to be saying the same thing as everyone else:

Too little, too late.

While I applaud MS and their concern for security I am taking a wait and see approach. How many times has MS stated something as fact and when it came right down to it what they said and what really occured was so far apart.
Firefox is a worthy competiter and remember it has just released its first official final vs MS who has had years of fanefare filled roll outs now you'd think that experience would have produced a better mousetrap...not so.

Ok Bill your concern for us moves me but please shutup and just do it

Very well put - and I am as amused as you are indeed.
In this case, my guess is that this shows how insecure the FFundamentalists are: they had a field day so far, as they were convinced that MS wouldn't move on the IE front before Longhorn - But now that IE7 will come sooner than expected, and we're about to see if the Mighty Fox of Fire is as good as his zealots claim, their hysteria reaches new heights.

Obviously, this is bad news for them. The fun has just begun.

nobody complain about it not being backwards compatable.. UPGRADE your computer... anyway firefox owns all said and done. unless they do ALOT to this IE7 it will still suck... i bet they mage change the color or something but overall its just another patch to fix bug... prove me wrong microsoft.. please

Hmm.. yes. IE7 will probably just look like the old one, feel like the old one. Just with added (i call it) Irretating-ware, like those plingy things appearing above everytime you try to download something.
I set a batch programm to start Firefox and automaticly close it again everytime i start windows. Now I can start firefox just as fast - if not faster - than IE.

I find it odd.

This is essentially (from the description) IE6 SP2

It won't correct IEs inferior rendering engine.
It won't add correct/complete HTML/CSS support
It won't make IE a better browser, just a safer browser.

Be it as it may, security isn't the big reason to use Firefox, Opera, or any other alternative browser.

Yes, they have a better track record dealing with security, but that's as much the smaller installed base. It's not as easy a target... but it's not necessarily more secure per se.

The big reason is Firefox, Opera, Safari - they're modern browsers, that support a far greater gamut of web standards, and they provide next generation rendering engines that leave IE in the dust.

Some people may have made it about security - because that's IE's blatantly obvious weakness... some people make it about "tabs", or pup-up blocking... but those things can be added to IE through extensions or alternate shells.

no, IE's real weakness is not security (it can be locked down) or features (it's easy to add features to, as with Firefox)...

It's got a worthless, out of date rendering engine that needs to be retired.

If that's the engine they ship with IE7, they lose. Not because nobody will use it... because they missed the point - make it better.

Everyone else does.

"The big reason is Firefox, Opera, Safari - they're modern browsers, that support a far greater gamut of web standards, and they provide next generation rendering engines that leave IE in the dust."

That would be a significant point - if those standards were in widepsread use and the rule.

As far as I can see, they're not.

While I'll acknowlege that the engine is old, "new" is only better when it buys you something, especially in widespread fashion.

I see no evidence that "new" buys anything at this time. I also don't subscribe to the "it's coming" princiuple. So is Christmas (and Linux and Christ, and... ).

"Better" is a relative thing. If it works today with the vast majority of sites and "better" is only used by a few, what's the point?

Just playing devil's advocate.

Oh and one more thing: we've seen one graphic example of "new and better" being eanything but in browsers recently, so much so that the vanguard of "new and better" has dropped it (I refer of course to the folks in ZillaLand).

As people begin to embrace the new (new - that's a laugh... CSS and HTML 4, XHTML and the like are getting dusty...) standards, and find real uses for them...

What good will using IE do then?

The only site I've seen where it has any abilities that modern browsers don't is Windows Update - which is redundant anyways, since automatic updates are built into windows.

Microsoft needs to update their browser, as they've always claimed they would, to offer support for CSS, CSS2, CSS3, and so on...

People are forced to NOT use features that would make their pages better simply because of IE. That, quite frankly, sucks.

If Firefox hit the 50% market share, MS might care about playing catch up... as it is, all they're doing is adding a security patch and calling it the next version... which is just stupid from any perspective, other than marketing... and hoping it stems the tide of people trying something else instead.

They advertised innovation - now they stifle it.

Yay. Go microsoft. :(

my personal take on this, having been a computer tech since the way early 1980's is this.. there are a LOT of computer users out there who are low income, and dont make tons of money to always buy the latest and the greatest. I routinely work on computers running win95 and 98 as well as alternative operating systems. I run a company that boasts cross platform tech service and sales. I dont always follow the trend as it may be. Iresearch a little and mostly bench test new apps and stuff as they come out, and choose whats best for most people, not for most rich people
That said, I think it's a big mistake on ms's part not to consider the win9x platform in a new browser update. nuff said. I am glad I offer alternatives to all my customes, not limit them to "do this and pay more money than you make, or else"

I say the opposite.. DONT upgrade.. most people do NOT realize that to most of the world, a computer is still a tool to make communiucation and management easier. not all the bells and whistles.

"As people begin to embrace the new (new - that's a laugh... CSS and HTML 4, XHTML and the like are getting dusty...) standards, and find real uses for them..."

I've seen too many pie-in-the-sky predictions that didn't catch on in this business.

"Oh, it's new!"

"It'll be great!"

"Everyone will use it!"

"It's forgotten..."

I'll wait.

Now, bear in mind that I'm not saying that things won't change. However Time Proves Everything. Who knows, maybe this lot will be abandoned and a successor will succeed. Maybe this lot will catch on. In any event, we're years away from the conclusion. You point out that these standards aren't new. Well, if it ain't new and ain't gaining ground that fast...

Remember SGML?

That pretty much negates the whole concept of "we need a new rendering engine because of new standards". When we *actually* need one, we'll get one.

Im glad about this, for awhile it sounded like thier would never be another browser from MS again. I bet IE7 will have the capabilities that people have wanted,(tabbed browsering, extendability, etc) I for one am looking forward to its release.

We already *have* a new rendering engine... and these amazing technologies?

The only reason you don't see them in wide use is because IE doesn't support them. Go have a look at examples of the technology using Opera or Firefox... even just visual stuff - the things that can be done with web standards is breathtaking.

IE was built as a marketing tool, not a web browser - it's purpose? To make sure that the web, as a medium, didn't make MS irrelevant. To make sure that the world needed MS to use the web they way they wanted to.

To that purpose, IE was developed at a breakneck pace, but never really polished or debugged - I'm sure the plan was to add more polish once they won the "browser wars", but they never really bothered. Shame on them.

"The only reason you don't see them in wide use is because IE doesn't support them."

I beg to differ. Having used Opera and Firefox, I'm yet to see anything new and breathtaking in the plethora of sites I visit. I do see anomalies where quirks mode isn't supported with Firefox but that's about it.

In short, I'm saying you're wildly over-optimistic (serious rose-colored glasses) if you say these standards are in common use everywhere, bringing new display methodologies to everyone but IE users. I'm saying that they're not in use because of the lowest common denominator - IE. And I'm saying they won't be used on a wide scale until that lowest common denominator moves. Finally, I'm saying that lowest common denominator (translation: the mass market de facto standard browser) will never be Firefox, will never be Opera and will never be anything but will remain...

...IE.

What that means is that when IE changes (and it will), the rest of the world will too because then and only then will it suit them to do so.

Not before.

Do I expect to be flamed for this, especially from the lunatic fringe peanut gallery? Sure - they'll continue to see whatever they want to see, regardless if it's reality or not. Will that perspective change anything from happening in the way I've predicted it? No.

Wait and see - time will tell as it always does. Inertia and installed base are on IE's side - nothing else's.

Security is nice but once I had PopupCop and Roboform going IE was "safe" for me. My reason for finally dumping IE, after suffering for years because the old NS was just too outdated and unsupported, is the rendering engine. In short: PNG support. IE has NEVER bothered to get this right... except on the mac side. WTF guys?! Wait til pages are finally built with PNG images and alpha transparency and you'll see what we've all been missing for yeeears. I can finally build a page with transparent parts the way I want without doing a buch of ridiculous stuff to "get around IE/win".
Another good reason: bookmarks. I felt like a made a big step backwards from NS4.7 to IE re: bookmarks. Now I've finally got all that extra information and proper sorting (ie: when it hits midnight I can still see where I browsed to 10 minutes ago without hunting).

IE7 could and damn well better fix these things, but... I wouldn't count on it. Besides, I was happier when MS said they were giving up on the browser arena. which they should. But that's just me. I hate big a** "we do it all!.. (halfassed)" companies.

The fact that a browser relies on specific parts of the OS to function shows you they still don't get it... and are still begging for more dates in court.

I'm curious what will be the improovements for IE7. Eh...but until then, i'm staying with Maxthon.

Boy, I can't wait for IE7. The 1st thing I will do is go use my paypal and see how long it takes for someone to get my info. Then we will see how secure it is lol. Hmm...I can save all my visited web pages, unplug my cable modem and surf safely that way. But If something goes wrong, I'll fire up firefox, smoke a cig, wait and see if it loaded, then post a new post on how unsecure IE is. :S
P.S.
I use either firefox or IE depending on my mood or website lol