Login:
Password:

Interview: Microsoft Exec Talks IE7, RSS

By Nate Mook and Ed Oswald, BetaNews

February 17, 2006, 9:00 PM

(continued from previous page)

BetaNews: Is Microsoft considering replacing ActiveX with another technology due to such security problems?

Gary Schare: In the early days, we admit, we focused more on the power and stability than on the security. We have since upped the investment on the security side of it and feel we've really caught up quite a bit where now users can benefit from ActiveX and not have to worry about the security issues.

At the same time, there are alternative technologies that we're investing in and bringing out to developers, such as the Windows Presentation Framework and the Windows Communication Framework. We'll be pushing those quite aggressively in March at the Mix 06 conference. We expect a lot of developers to utilize those rich client platforms for building Web-based applications, but we certainly don't expect ActiveX to go away in any way, shape or form.

BN: When we last spoke, you cautioned that Firefox was riding on the early adopter wave and would have trouble reaching critical mass. You also cited SP2's 100 million download number dwarfing Firefox's 10 million. Now, Firefox has amassed 150 million downloads and continues to evolve. Has Firefox turned into a formidable competitor to IE and has its success surprised Microsoft?

GS: Certainly Firefox has made its mark out there; there are a number of users who run it. I think the latest stat I've seen across the mainstream is roughly 10 percent, which means 85 or 90% of people are still using Internet Explorer. So our primary focus is how do we deliver better software for our customers so that they don't feel the need to switch.

In general, competition is a good thing, and we respect the work that the Firefox guys have done. It was interesting to read their assessment on their public blogs when we released IE7, and the respect that they showed for us. I think there's been a lot of mutual respect for innovation, and good design ideas. They pointed out a number of things we did in IE7 that they thought would be great to have in Firefox in the future. We think competition is good and it makes us feel good that they're watching what we're doing and offering some positive comments.

BN: The browser landscape has changed a lot in the past two years. Security threats, RSS and AJAX, for example. Where does Microsoft see the market headed and is IE7 a pioneer in this area or a follower? On the outside, it seems like many of the new IE7 features have long been offered in alternate browsers. Is Microsoft playing catch up or are you breaking new ground?

GS: I think you can make a fair case that we're doing a little of both. There were clearly some areas that the early adopters had been using in alternative products for a while. Tabs is probably the primary one. And we fielded a number of questions and even complaints from customers saying "When are you going to give us tabbed browsing in IE." Now we've done that; IE7 has a very, very good tab implementation. There are many users out there who are still using IE6 and have never tried tabbed browsing, and we think when they get exposed to it in IE7 they'll think it's very cool.

There are a number of areas where we have done some innovation. RSS is a key one, both in terms of the user experience we're providing for discovering RSS feeds, reading and subscribing to them in the browser, but even more so in the platform. We've built the first RSS platform that any developer can take advantage of, so when you subscribe to a feed in IE7, that feed data will be available to any application that wants to look at it. This opens up a whole new host of RSS reading applications, as well as applications that in the past would have nothing to do with RSS, but now can take advantage of it because of the platform.

BN: The Windows RSS Platform is seemingly one of the biggest focuses of IE7, and will enable XP to take advantage of the technology. Where do you see RSS heading and why has it become such an important feature in the operating system and Web browser?

GS: If you use an RSS reader, generally you wind up finding a site that has an RSS feed in your Web browser and then you switch over to your RSS reader. And of course, once you're reading the feed there, you're going to link back into your Web browser to actually read a full article. The browser is a natural place for integration between feed discovery and feed reading.

But we don't believe the browser is the only place to consume these feeds, which is why building this RSS platform is so critical. Any developer can come up with all kinds of new ways for users to interact with the feed data. For example, ways to filter, sort and search through the feeds, and bring the data into other applications for things like calendaring and digital images.

BN: IE7 changed a lot from Beta 1 to the Beta 2 Preview. Can we expect to see changes this big before the final release, or are things pretty feature complete at this point?

GS: You've seen the majority of the changes between Beta 1 and the Beta 2 Preview. From here on out the number of changes will be small, and most of them will not be visible to the end user. From our perspective the features are done -- we just may have to change the way some of the features work either for compatibility reasons or due to feedback we get from early testing with customers.

The general feature set you should consider complete, so now is the time for developers to run IE7 against their applications and Web sites and make sure they work well. And if they don't, developers can either report the issue to us, or make some changes in their products. There are certainly some changes in the CSS platform and security that will force some level of change.

BN: Can you give us any idea as to a final release date for IE7?

GS: We think it will be in the same timeframe as Vista. Whether it will be before, on the same day, or just after is unclear at this point. But we expect to have a full public Beta 2 release in the first half of '06 and the final release in the second half of '06. We'll have similar dates for a more public beta of Windows Vista and the final launch.

The version of IE7 in Windows Vista is slightly different; it's a superset of the XP version, but only by a couple of features. One is a feature called Protected Mode, which takes advantage of the new user account controls in Windows Vista to run the Internet Explorer process in a much lower privilege than even a limited user. That offers a great level of protection from future vulnerabilities and malicious attacks. The second feature is parental control -- putting parents in control of the Web sites their kids visit and providing a much safer online experience.

BN: And last but not least: When we last talked, you were using Maxthon as your daily browser. Have you switched to IE7?

GS: Yes, I have. I've been using IE7 since before the first beta last summer and install new builds almost every day so I get to check the progress. We've definitely come a long way. I'll tell you, early on going from Maxthon to IE7 Beta 1 was a difficult switch, because a lot of the features I really liked were not there yet. But now I'm running the IE7 Beta 2 Preview and having a great experience.

<< Prev | 1 | 2

Add a Comment (59 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By rageingnonsense

edited Feb 22, 2006 - 12:33 AM

As a web developer, the feature that IE lacks that makes me ABHOR it the most is it's s***ty javascript debugging capabilities. Trying to debug a script in IE is like trying to build a house in the dark. The one debugger it DOES have (and I must admit, I don't eve know if it came with IE, XP, or my visual studio suite) is total crap. I can't debug code with user input, which basically makes it useless. I can't even watch variables properly.

It's bad enough that I have to practically make two different apps so that all the end users have the same experience (or close to it), but when you are not giving me the tools to even do that much, it becomes a major issue.

I'd like to see 2 things in IE7. Standards compliance, and GOOD debugging tools for the developer.

Personally, I don't care what browser you use. It's all user preference. But, remember it is a WEB browser. One web. One standard. Please stop making me code two versions of my apps =/.

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Feb 23, 2006 - 3:05 AM

MS will never stop using this strategy. "Embrace and extend" has been their #1 strategy from day 1. Naturally the "extend" part is proprietary extensions designed to lock you into their GOOD products. The point to frustrate web designers/developers is so they WON'T waste the energy coding two versions, but only one - for the current big dog (IE).

Personally I think it'll be a tragedy if MS doesn't keep 90%+ of OS+Office+browser control in the next few years. I'd rather LOSE 10% of customers (Firefox/non-Windows users) and CONCENTRATE efforts on one platform (MS) so I'd gain, say, 20% more customers/profits and be on v3.0 of the website instead of v1.5 but catering to those Firefox guys...

Besides, this isn't a religion to most people, so the majority of Firefox users would probably use IE or IETAB for your site.

Score: 0

By dangerpossum

edited Feb 22, 2006 - 6:05 AM

Gary,

Can you explain how the IE7 team and Microsoft can justify releasing a brand new browser that doesn't conform to open web standards for CSS, HTML, and XML as defined by the World Wide Web Consortium (or the W3C, a group in which I believe Microsoft participates)?

Given its vast resources, how can Microsoft let tiny little teams like those building Konqueror (Linux), Safari (Mac OS X), Firefox/Mozilla (cross platform), and Opera build browsers that are all significantly better at complying to open standards than Microsoft's brand-spanking new flagship browser? Isn't it deeply embarrassing for you? It sure would be for me.

Why didn't Microsoft simply adopt the Firefox or Safari/Konqueror code base, both of which have been offering most of IE7's advances (and standards compliance besides) for quite some time now, as their open source licenses allow you to do?? Too much pride? Not enough smarts? Not enough lock-in?

As a web designer, I believe the sorts of poor technical decisions Microsoft makes and its bizarre (and utterly indefensible) refusal to adhere to open web standards simply makes my job much more frustrating. Working around the pathetic deficiencies of IE5, 5.5, and 6 more than doubles the time it takes to develop a reasonable site. My customers pay twice as much because of Microsoft's incompetence. And now the IE7 team is perpetuating it for another generation of browsers by stating categorically (in the IE7blog) that W3C standards compliance isn't even on the agenda.

When is Microsoft going to surprise me, by doing something kind or honourable or courteous or something good for mankind? But then that might lead to you gaining good will in the marketplace - something you don't need when you're a brazenly law-defying monopoly who has the US government in your back pocket, I guess.

Good luck to you, Gary - you'll need it. I voted with my feet long ago, and I'm working with an ever growing team of developers that is actively pursuing a day when Microsoft is irrelevant.

(written in Firefox 1.5 on Linux)

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Feb 23, 2006 - 3:20 AM

It's an arms race. MS will shove new web "standards" down everyone's throat, and they'll swallow it happily because it'll be "good enough" and guess what - the easier thing for them to do (the users), and won't frustrate them with a week-long customized firefox configuration journey...

All MS needs to do when they start to lose control (if it happens) is keep providing easy ways to take advantage of their own version of web standards (or other technologies), say with free Frontpage on stereoids, or even just by integrating flickr or a full-fledged web publishing engine in the OS. Content could be hosted on end-users machines (now that they have Groove and Foldershare p2p tech on their hands) or on MS servers (perhaps still using some p2p client while viewing content to offload burden onto end-users a la bittorrent).

Anyway the point is the users will USE such services happily, not realizing (nor caring) that by doing that they're locking themselves into using IE7+...

I think the good luck wish should be given to you, my friend. MS is WAYYYY powerful and obviously funded than the open source community. For every high-quality programming hour spent (by whomever) on a popular open-source browser/OS, MS can happily spend 50 hours. Who do you think will win that arms race in the end? ;)

Score: 0

By HiredGun79

edited Feb 21, 2006 - 3:50 PM

The question I have is will IE7 ACTUALLY SUPPORT web standards? Will us web developers have to create two web pages, one for all other browsers and one for IE users? Will the IE7 developers understand the simple concept of web standards and read the couple of paragraphs that describe the box model? It's not hard. I just taught a 7 year old how to use CSS and HE started complaining about IE. It's crazy. . .

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Feb 23, 2006 - 3:24 AM

MS's ambition is to be THE web standards governing body. They actually should have come up with more proprietary web-related stuff during IE5-6 reign of past few years but I'm sure they've realized that mistake and come up with more of that stuff in the next few years.

Score: 0

By consumer4beta

edited Feb 21, 2006 - 3:31 AM

Yeah that's right MS, you're on the right track, just dont stop development of IE ever. Continue to evolve and dont stop like u did in 2001. That was where u went wrong. And as for size, the day wont be long when FF will exceed IE's size.
Except for the plugins and selective frame reloading, I like nothing about Firefox and fail to see how they like the overall UI and the 'experience'.

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Feb 21, 2006 - 10:57 AM

MS does not innovate unless pushed into a corner so I'm very glad the Firefox guys are around. Personally, I really like the fact that major releases of OS/Office/browser take 3-4 years (about the same time you'd wanna replace your hardware too). Gives everyone enough time to "get on board", "learn it well", "fix it easily", and "maximize the potential" of this software due to 100s of millions of users worldwide using it.

As for efficiency - 95% of people don't care for slightly faster experience. They would almost always opt to pay a little more for more RAM or faster CPU but still stick with whatever MS shoves down their throats because it just does everything they wanna do without spending too much time re-learning it (Mac/Linux).

Score: 0

By zee7

posted Feb 20, 2006 - 9:45 PM

A friend of mine was in Bill Gates' office and said he used a Samsung widescreen. That always cracked me up for some reason. I don't know why. Guess I expected him to use a tricked out Dell or HP.

Score: 0

By Pegusis2

posted Feb 20, 2006 - 2:53 PM

Not to burst any of the readers bubbles... but as Nice as Firefox wants to be, it's still only used by a handfull of people. I've been running web servers for over 6 years and have many statistics on what browsers are hitting the servers and on the average I'd say a good 87% or more are still IE users. I personally have Netscape, Firefox, Opera and of Course IE on my boxes here and a good 95% of the time I'm using IE... the only other time I use the other browsers are to view my HTML/ASP work to compare and make sure the overall view from each browser is ruffly the same.

What I get a real kick out of is the young puppies who complain about IE and probably have less than 5 years experience on a computer in the first place.

Score: 0

By Marli

posted Feb 23, 2006 - 8:16 PM

You code in ASP. Enough said.

Score: 0

By possiz

edited Feb 20, 2006 - 2:38 AM

One of the great advantages Firefox has against IE is the rendering of nested tables. Microsoft had promised to speed up the process since IE v5 but no change at IE7. This is one of the biggest changes I would like to see in IE because the feeling of page load is extremely better in Firefox.

Score: 0

By frankwick

posted Feb 20, 2006 - 11:35 AM

I don't think nested table rendering is as big of an issue as you make it. Don't get me wrong, I am a FF user, but how often do you hit a site with such nested table complexity that actually slows down the rendering to a point where the average user will notice?

Score: 0

By possiz

posted Feb 20, 2006 - 8:20 PM

Everyday. Always. Almost all the sites rely on tables to proper position elements on the screen. Read this IE blog in order to understand what I'm saying and why IE is miles away behind Firefox & Opera on the feeling of the loading of the page (http://blogs.msdn.com/ie.../2005/02/10/370721.aspx).

Score: 0

By Marli

edited Feb 23, 2006 - 8:14 PM

"Almost all the sites rely on tables to proper position elements on the screen."

Dude, people, what date is it? Are we still in 2006? Just checking. Table layouts, bloody hell...

http://www.w3schools.com/css/default.asp

Do some reading.

Score: 0

By mdew

posted Feb 20, 2006 - 2:06 AM

what, no questions about advances in CSS2 and CSS3? mathml? SVG? (beyond IE7 that is)

Score: 0

By coniglio

posted Feb 19, 2006 - 9:18 PM

I certainly hope that Microsoft doesn't do something less than honest by claiming to have invented or even pioneered technologies like RSS, AJAX, (clears throat) CSS support, etc. I'm sure they have worked hard on this browser, but the monoculture at Microsoft that I perceive seems to feel that something doesn't exist really until they implement it. Monoculture whether it be at Microsoft of Apple will get you into trouble, and money just prolongs the severity of the consequences.

Score: 0

By eamon

edited Feb 20, 2006 - 10:27 AM

uhm... not to rock you're boat here, but AJAX is basically XMLHttpRequest, and that's a microsoft "innovation" (you could call it a non-standard extension) which proved so useful that everyone else is implementing it too... So in a sense, microsoft did invent AJAX ;-). Of course, in another sense, AJAX is just a buzzword meaning server request without full page reload, and in that sense, it's even older, and more a design methodology that a specific technology.

Score: 0

By Stingray57

posted Feb 19, 2006 - 8:38 PM

Personally, I could care less about IE7. IE7 is like AOL to stupid people- locks them in to thinking this the only thing I can use to access the internet.

IE in general is just a security problem- period.

The browser is developed to be tied directly to the operating system. That's just plain stupid. It's an applicattion and should be developed as such. The last full DL i saw of IE was 20mb. 20mb for a web browser?! Com'on! Who on dialup wants to pull down updates for IE? The last patch I saw for IE was 13mb.

Firefox is developed as a standalone app and the last DL size I saw was 5mb AND it can be ran without installing it to the system (USB stick).

IE locks you in to a fixed set of functions. Firefox offers a base set of features, but the user can decide to add more to it as they see fit (foxcast, adblocker, etc.)

The browser should be a extension of the user using it and it should never lock all users in to the bloated tele-tubby interface.

ActiveX is MS preprietary code to push users in a direction because every user that has ever loaded windows (90% of users)has ActiveX auto installed. No one wants to use to because of security issues. Even MS said not to use activeX at one time.

Lastly, MS is tired of these small mom and pop guys making better versions (and money) off of an IE GUI than what MS was offering (popups, ablockers, etc). They are just trying to redeem themselves and regain their dominance in the market.

Best wishes to all!

Score: 0

By AlanRivaldo

posted Feb 19, 2006 - 10:44 AM

Use-D. USED - past tense.

Score: 0

By JacenSolo

posted Feb 18, 2006 - 6:43 PM

He used MacOSX I bet :P

No, Seriously... MyIE2 (Maxthon) is just a rebuilt IE... it's nothing special... It's got all the weaknesses IE has, with a few features borrowed from Opera and Firefox... So really, the IE7 exec is still using his own product.

Score: 0

By AlanRivaldo

posted Feb 19, 2006 - 10:48 AM

" So really, the IE7 exec is still using his own product."

WAS (past tense) using his own product (in the guise of Maxthon, which is based on IE 6). Now he is using IE7.

Score: 0

By boner24

posted Feb 18, 2006 - 4:01 PM

Obviously ActiveX is an attempt by Microsoft to lock-in the user, creating proprietary, platform specific hooks in the browser that make it difficult for the user to switch browser and/or platform when they become dependent on the functionality of ActiveX.

It has no *real* place in a browser, which should be platform agnostic and standards compliant.

Just as Microsoft tried (and failed) to lock the user into Internet Explorer with proprietary extensions to Java, they will ultimately fail with ActiveX.

Microsoft wish to control the internet, and the browser is the obvious tool for exercising such control over the user. Using Internet Explorer is tacitly endorsing Microsoft's domination game plan.

And lastly, it's frankly laughable that Mr. Schare suggests security is the predominant reason for making IE7 available to XP users. Microsoft neglected the browser for over 5 years, until they noticed Firefox encroaching and taking away significant market share. To suggest security was the driving factor is, to say the least, disingenuous.

Score: 0

By AlanRivaldo

posted Feb 19, 2006 - 12:00 PM

I believe security was the predominant reason for the recent push to update IE. If MS loses market share on a product that they give away for FREE, then so what? They're not deriving any revenue from it, and neither are the competitors. Their main rival also gives away the product for free, and yet another competitor (Opera) has just begun giving away its product for free. Even though IE generates no revenue, there still may be some long-term strategic reasons to keep it up-to-date, but they're not as important as other agendas. IE has been neglected for 5 years because it simply wasn't a top priority. IE's market share is not as pressing of an issue as renewing the OS, the Office Suite, X-Box, mobile technologies, or extending into other markets.

Score: 0

By DigitalSin

posted Feb 18, 2006 - 6:19 PM

"It has no *real* place in a browser, which should be platform agnostic and standards compliant."

I assume you feel the same way about Java applets in the browser, right? Java is not platform independent - it has been ported to multiple platforms is the difference (an obvious attempt by Sun to control the browsers and the web).

ActiveX support in IE has been around for a long time and I don't believe IE got its market share from that technology. All they are saying is they have made ActiveX more secure which is what consumers asked for.

If it wasn't for ActiveX, where would your AJAX be? No where.

Score: 0

By JacenSolo

posted Feb 18, 2006 - 6:41 PM

Java was an attempt to allow platform independant programs to be made.

A very good example would be Geocitie's pagebuilder. It can run under any operating system. Yahoo only needed to compile it once.

ActiveX has no place in a browser. The only legit use I've seen is Windows Update, and you don't need to user that with IE due to Automatic updates.

"If it wasn't for ActiveX, where would your AJAX be? No where."
What the hell is Ajax?

Score: 0

By doctate

edited Feb 21, 2006 - 4:30 PM

It's hard to believe that you have a legitimate reason for contributing to this discussion if you haven't even heard of AJAX.

Score: 0

By rotjong

posted Feb 19, 2006 - 4:56 PM

"What the hell is Ajax"

Read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AJAX

Score: 0

By doctorsmith

posted Feb 18, 2006 - 10:17 PM

MS still putting all it's X in the same basket

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Feb 18, 2006 - 3:20 PM

I used IE7 beta2 for a few days and it drove me nuts... Websites I frequently visited had images in wrong locations covering text, and input boxes (textareas) were not showing text that was typed/pasted there (for quoted messages etc). It just sucked.

I HIGHLY DOUBT IE7 final will be much better in this sense, simply because the engine has been modified to the point breaking backwards-compatibility IS A MUST (IMHO). But we can all hope. Actually, I don't really care if it works or not - in 6 months+ I'll stick to Maxthon 2.0 on whichever IE engine works BEST for me - 6 or 7... I don't give a crap if websites load 10% faster. I don't care to fight idealistic wars (Firefox) at the cost/pain of suffering daily by not seeing ALL my favorite sites "as intended". I don't care for standards compatibility. I only care for me...

Maybe in 2 years websites will be optimized for IE7 engine, or Firefox's... Till then, I'm using the engine that gives me ZERO issues, and I just may have to POSTPONE upgrading to Vista because of that, too!

With my firewall, antispyware, automatic Windows updates, and antivirus I don't fear the "vulnerabilities".

Windows XP Pro SP2 + Maxthon is GOOD ENOUGH for me for the next 2 years.

Score: 0

By davewalden

posted Feb 21, 2006 - 10:39 AM

It is beta

Score: 0

By thinsoldier

edited Feb 20, 2006 - 1:08 PM

With the simple fact that I have not once opened IE since the last time I had to reinstall windows... I don't fear the "vulnerabilities" either.

http://thinsoldier.com/v...pyware_live_install.wmv
hey, anyone with the beta on xp, does crap like this still happen?

Score: 0

By JacenSolo

posted Feb 18, 2006 - 6:47 PM

No offense dude, but a firewall and antivirus can't protect you from all of IE's vulnerabilities. There will always be an exploit for IE's engine... (as it's STILL the most popular engine... but only cause people don't care about themselves...)

Score: 0

By extremely well

posted Feb 20, 2006 - 2:26 PM

I have never heard, not a single time, of a person using IE (and did what I said - fully patched all software, reputable firewall+antivirus+spyware) who got financially/otherwise damaged due to the hacking of their PC, whichever way (through browser, OS, email client, whatever).

So if I was a multi-million dollar corporation I'd worry about those tiny holes that only extremely talented hackers can and in reality exploit (for blackmail, spying, etc).

Trust me, if the security problems were really serious in people's minds, Firefox would have 50% marketshare by now... My prediction: two years after Windows Vista comes out, Firefox marketshare will shrink from soon-to-be-15% to its natural size of 5%. That will include all Mac users (since MS totally deserted them a la "Mac user? no IE and no Office for you!")

Score: 0

By Stevietheman

edited Feb 21, 2006 - 4:26 PM

And I predict that Firefox marketshare will rise to 25 or 30% by the end of the year.

Why? One word: Extensions.

We all know (or should know) that people gravitate to where the applications are, not to operating systems. Firefox is the "operating system" for the many powerful extensions developed (and being developed) for it.

Re: security issues not driving more browser users to Firefox, it's a simple issue of inertia--Microsoft made it very easy to stick with IE, as it's residing on everyone's Windows PC. Installing Firefox requires an effort. I would figure many people decide: Why install another browser if I already have one?

But nevertheless, Firefox is growing and growing and growing despite this inertia. Yes, the growth is slow, but thankfully, the Firefox community is patient, and more and more useful extensions keep on coming.

Score: 0

By extremely well

edited Feb 23, 2006 - 4:29 AM

By 2006's end I believe Firefox will have no more than 15% marketshare. Again, they'll lose all that during 2007-2008 IMHO.

I think you are seeing too much value in Firefox extensions. They're all cool and nice but you gotta realize many people DO NOT wanna deal with these complex issues. Their life is too complicated as it is so most folks just stick to what works. Configuring Firefox extensions or finding some extension that you like (after testing some that you didn't so much like of course) is not something to recommend to the average non-techy user (like 90% of them).

And even for the techy types - they'll care more about compatibility to all their favorite sites (IETAB is not there yet but could be eventually!). I know I do. I don't mind using non-MS stuff, heck I use Winamp (not WMP), ACDSEE (not Picture&Fax Viewer), ClipMate (not Clip Organizer), SnagIt (not PrtSc+Paint), Nero (not HighMAT Wizard), Music Library (not WMP Library), WinRAR (not zip/cab), UltraVNC (not Remote Desktop/Assistance), UltraEdit (not notepad), TrueCrypt (not EFS), and finally Maxthon (not IE).

But I still pick MS stuff when it's the best for my needs: MS Office (not OO), Windows Live Messenger beta (not Skype/AIM/etc), Windows Media Encoder (not crappy MP3 at low bitrates or "rare" formats no common hardware player supports), and finally IE (through Maxthon, again).

Point is I don't say everything MS does is golden, but the MAJOR stuff they do is pretty damn good (OS/Office/browser). IE6 sucks, but they've made it modular enough so Maxthon came along and made it into a beautiful browser that has those things you said are important - extensions. So as a techy I picked Maxthon instead of Firefox just because Firefox does not render ALL MY FAVORITE SITES properly. Same reason I dumped IE7 for now...

My feeling is that MS will eventually buy out Maxthon (if the Chinese guru-developer does the smart thing TO RAISE HIS VALUE IN MS EYES and starts injecting Firefox engine in there better than the current limited mode which now reqs browser restart on engine-switch) ... and MS will make Maxthon into a premium browser ("Internet Explorer Pro"), part of Office 13 or something.

A complex browser (too many features that average folks don't use) MUST be optional. Most users pick OE over full fledged Outlook any day even if latter was offered for free (or bootlegged). Most users' needs will be covered by IE7 and more websites will rush to work with its weirdness (compatibility issues) than the websites that'll spend same limited resources supporting Firefox (or non-MS). Those users who'll need more power than plain IE7 will choose Maxthon over Firefox more often in my opinion, once Maxthon 2.0 is out (with many promised awesome features) and their PR starts to take off. I know of 10 folks who use Maxthon just because I showed them how better it is than IE. About 3 of them tried Firefox and found it lacking. Now between you and me, if they spent more time on Firefox they could have found extensions to make it into a worthy browser in their eyes -- but why bother when Maxthon 1.5 already comes with most nifty features built-in, and then of course you can add plugs. As a very heavy browser user I have not yet found a real need for any plugin for Maxthon, though I toyed with the idea of installing at least 20 really highly recommended ones. Why? Cuz It Just Works right now, and perfectly well for me. A little more a little less is not a big deal...

I spoke too much...Anyhow we'll see in 2.5 years where Firefox stands ;) I hope it'll be under 10% or over 90%, but not in between. ;)

Ciao

Score: 0

By Maxim Kovalenko

edited Feb 21, 2006 - 4:12 PM

Then let me be the first to enlighten you.

I watched my wife try to check the Garfield website for the daily comic. She was viewing the site with a fully patched IE6 on Windows XP SP2 with Sygate Personal Firewall, Avast Antivirus, Windows Firewall, and was behind a hardware firewall and got infected by two viruses that installed backdoors on her machine and eventually required a complete OS.

The only thing she did was watch the home page for Garfield open up, I was standing over her shoulder when it happened.

Score: 0

By extremely well

edited Feb 23, 2006 - 4:44 AM

ha ha ha

It never happened. I've dealt with hundreds of PCs and PC users and NOBODY suffered ANY damage, definitely not requiring an OS-reinstall, if they did the very few things you've claimed you did.

The only people who suffered serious damage are those with harddrive crashing. Everyone who suffered slowness/popups/viruses did not lose any data and only suffered inconvenience due to VERY careless behavior, 90% of time not patching machine AND not running antivirus. Luckily all the major viruses hitting clueless folks in the past few years have been rather benign - no loss of data. Only exception is the non-event Kama Sutra which was a badly programmed virus that in labs couldn't perform the file deletion it was supposed to do, for some reason.

Score: 0

By biznotch

posted Feb 18, 2006 - 8:54 AM

If IE7 starts to have as many FREE extensions available to it as Firefox does, I'll consider using it. I cannot browse without AdBlock, IE Tab, ForecastFox, Tab Mix Plus, and about a zillion other great extensions that are FREE.

Score: 0

By Paradise-FH-

posted Feb 18, 2006 - 1:12 PM

i agree with you. after having so much control over the way the browser and web is presented to me i'd find it hard to even consider paying for the same functionality with ie (even more so when they rip windows update out of its ie requirement and directly into windows).

Score: 0

By ladylust

posted Feb 18, 2006 - 3:30 AM

FIrefox is still my browser. I used IE7 - it was nothing more then a slower version with IE6 with a facelift. There is only so much you can do with a browser - and looks dont matter - they just slow things down. Why doesnt MS just buy firefox - shut down the open source and call it IE 7 :)

Score: 0

By Marli

posted Feb 23, 2006 - 8:31 PM

You don't know much about open source do you?

Score: 0

By Velocition

posted Feb 19, 2006 - 7:36 PM

retard

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Feb 19, 2006 - 2:54 AM

"Why doesnt MS just buy firefox - shut down the open source and call it IE 7"

Oh yea, so they can destroy it with the first release under their ownership.

That has got to be the most insane comment I've ever heard.

Score: 0

By AlanRivaldo

posted Feb 19, 2006 - 11:40 AM

Which is probably why ladylust put a smiley at the end of the post.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Feb 20, 2006 - 1:17 AM

Which is probly the reason I'm not really panicing over ladylust's statement.

Score: 0

By Paradise-FH-

posted Feb 18, 2006 - 1:06 PM

that's really a mind numbingly stupid comment.

which part of tabs do you consider a facelift?
which part of smarter pop up blocking do you consider a facelift?
which part of quickly seeing the contents of all open tabs a facelift?

Score: 0

By Adrian79

posted Feb 18, 2006 - 2:34 AM

ie7 i use more than firefox, but firefox has amazing extensions like "view in IE" or "IE tab" or "multitab plus" i use all of them and honestly.... better, faster, more fun experience....

still IE7 is almost there!! great job!

Score: 0

By JacenSolo

edited Feb 18, 2006 - 2:29 AM

I'm using a Beta copy of IE7 and I must say... I prefer IE6 over it... IE7 is just too slow and bulky :(

And what happened to the toolbars and stuff?

Score: 0

By athome

posted Feb 20, 2006 - 12:53 PM

They are still there, just check your settings.

Score: 0

By Velocition

posted Feb 19, 2006 - 7:37 PM

what retard uses toolbars today?

Score: 0

By FlAshdobe

posted Feb 18, 2006 - 2:10 PM

even yourself said you are using a beta version of IE7, so why do you whine about it?

Score: 0

By JacenSolo

posted Feb 18, 2006 - 6:38 PM

A beta is a reflection of the final product, just with a few bugs and stuff

Score: 0

By AlanRivaldo

posted Feb 19, 2006 - 11:41 AM

Like slowness and missing toolbars...

Score: 0

By athome

posted Feb 20, 2006 - 12:56 PM

I don't experinece slowness and like the way in looks and acts. You missing the toolbars is an oversight in your settings. They are there, but they are assuming that most people don't use them anymore and they come deactivated by default.

Go to options and then toolbars and you will see them.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Feb 17, 2006 - 11:35 PM

I know this will sound odd for me to say, being a general supporter of Microsoft, but I believe IE7 is a great improvement over IE6. However-- ActiveX really does need to be replaced, or at least amended, by the "Netscape plugins" model.

At the very least, one of the features I would like to see in the final IE7 is a much improved Restricted and Trusted Zone list... better "wildcard" options for the lists would allow users-- especially administrators-- to better manage the restricted zone list to prevent malicious sites from being a problem and thereby circumventing many cases of user-misjudgment.

Score: 0

By klingon379

posted Feb 18, 2006 - 4:37 AM

Microsoft did support Netscape plugins in most versions of IE prior to version 5.01. Microsoft discontinued support for Netscape plugins because they thought ActiveX was better.

Score: 0

By JacenSolo

posted Feb 18, 2006 - 2:24 AM

ActiveX needs to go IMO.

I had no real use.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Feb 20, 2006 - 5:44 PM

Yeah, Windowsupdates, Housecall antivirus (and other brands), X-Cleaner, Shockwave Installer, Plugins--no real uses for it.

Many software DEPEND on ActiveX. Many mfr. driver recovery CDs will not work if ActiveX is disabled. Removal of ActiveX would be suicide for MS. Disabling it by default is the absolute best compromise, period.

Score: 0