$399 USD is only the tip of the iceberk.

Add a DX10 video card, a uptospeed dual core CPU, 2 Gb of PC200000 RAM....

Not to mention a new generation of more expensive "Design for Windows Vista" apps and games......

I will stick to XP under the dust settles in 2 years......

The new MS IE 7.0 beta will work with CSS 2.1 and XHTML 1.0. If a Web Designer make a site that use the Recommendations of W3C then IE will have no problems. But if a Web Designer use CSS Hacks or Conditional comments to fix a Design, ok, many problems for IE. MS IE 7.0 have no problems with Alpha Channel PNG Transparency, work with CSS layouts, work with XML or XSLT and work now with the abbr-tag. A big fix for persons with disabilities. If you wish, test and compare MS IE 7.0 or any other browser for compliance of Web Standards on http://www.aadmm.de (Available Languages: english and german).

I doesn't understand many people, but the new IE 7.0 is a big improvement.

Hmm, isnt Acid2 100% CSS/W3C compliant and yet IE7 wont ever render that correctly. I would hardly call Acid2 a "CSS hack" IE7 might well be a big improvement, but over what? IE6, once of the worst browsers in use?

"The only way for us to continue to improve our standards support is to get your help in changing your sites for IE7."
That's just terrible. Micro$oft don't want to make a better browser that load faster, or be more secure or do a better rendering. No no, now the whole world have to work to redesign web sites and "change" them FOR IE7. Micro$oft, you are sooo pathetic.

So typical. Floodland didn't want to actually *read* the article, or be at all coherent in his rantings. No no, now we all have to work to ignore his baseless rantings. Floodland, you are $ooo pathetic.

The reason folks have to change their sites for IE7 is that *gasp* IE7 will be more standards compliant. It's not broken (or as broken) as IE6.

This is a bad thing? Yeah...you need help.

Basically, sites that USED to need hacks to work, can now be reveretd to W3C CSS compliant code.

How is that bad? If's good news for FireFox and Opera, who all along have had compliant browsers, which broken on same said hacked code..

They HAVE made a better browser that makes a better rendering. That is the point of their post: To tell people that it is more standards compient and to raise awareness of that. They want people to make their EXISTING sites more web standards complient so they are compatible with IE7's standards mode, not more IE7 complient. Existing site that use good web standards practises should not have to change them. Yes, there are a few issues with CSS rendering etc, but at least they are finally trying to listen to the standards bodies and actually make something that renders sites properly. Floodland, YOU are sooo pathetic. I suggest you read the source MS blog post and not just the story.

Flame away Microsoft haters. Disclaimer: I am neither a hater nor a lover of MS. I use Firefox for anything important, but have been trying out IE7 to see what it's like, and I like it. Firefox still has it's rendering issues as well.

""To preserve application compatibility we will not make any behavioral changes to “quirks mode” as it has been established since IE6," Mielke said."

Microsoft, your obsession with backwards compatibility in everything is your biggest problem. There's nothing wrong with allowing a program to run on multiple iterations of your OS, but at some point you have to say that something old isn't worth preserving. IE6's CSS scheme is one such thing. KILL IT. Force site maintainers to update their code.

Did you happen to catch any of the backlash on these very forums concerning the *gasp* lack of an 'up one folder' icon in Vista's Explorer window?

People fear change. So much so that it forces companies to do things they wouldn't normally do.

I agree that backwards compatibility has crippled much of their software, but from their perspective, doing otherwise would be corporate suicide.

Forcing IE7 to be blatantly and purposefully incompatible with sites previously designed solely for IE would not be good for business, even though it may be good for the browser (and the web itself in the long run).

I totally agree. I don't design for quirks mode anyway. If a cross-browser design can't be done with standard css then I try to avoid it (although sometimes it's very difficult). They should make it the opposite way and make a special doctype for quirks mode and make the standard css rendering for the default.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...ayout_engines_%28CSS%29

It still doesn't have a download manager and I am sick to death of IE stealing focus when a download completes. Even if you have Power Toys installed and set to NOT STEAL FOCUS!!!

I've lost too many downloads because of that lameness. GET A EMBEDDED DOWNLOAD MANAGER IE!

Firefox PnWeD IE

An included download manager has always been the least of IE's problems and shortcomings in my opinion. There have been a plethora of third-party download manager apps for IE for over a decade. How exactly would/does IE stealing focus cause you to lose a download?

Name a browser that *does* have a decent download manager built in.

Firefox? Wow...yeah, you can see them in a separate window. No multi-threading, limited information... It's crap.

There's a reason for the third-party DM market. There are plenty of free ones, even some decent commercial ones.

Then there's ReGet. ;)

Now if they could just give me the option of having a status window for each download....

In response to the last query - typing on the keyboard whilst a download completes stands a fair chance of you pressing a key that Windows will decide means "cancel download".

It's the stealing focus part that causes this issue. If the Download Complete dialogue box sat in the background and *waited* for user interaction the vast majority of these issues would vanish.

I can honestly say I do recall ever having that happen to me. Maybe my versions since Win95 have all been special and never ever stole focus? (Although, I used nothing but GoZilla when I was on the Win9x's )

Firefox? Wow...yeah, you can see them in a separate window. No multi-threading, limited information... It's crap.

I wouldn't even call what FF comes with a download manager, more like a download lister. I will take IE's download system any day over Firefox's. When I am going on a rampage saving high-res... umm, art pictures, yeah that's it... art pictures, I really don't appreciate having that separate download manager to start blinking every five seconds asking me to congradulate it on completing each and every download, I would use IE but it doesn't have tabs, and as everyone knows the above activity is the primary purpose of tabs. Seems like it isn't quite as desperate for attention as it used to be in previous releases; but still that was damn annoying.

I am not (as anyone who reads my posts here will no doubt know)a big fan of MS, but I have to give Microspud credit for this one. They are at least trying to meet industry standards this time rather than trying to force their standards down everyone else's throats as they have done in the past.

Maybe you didn't read the article, but it says Microsoft has not met the industry standard. While Opera, Firefox, and most all the other little known browsers have good CSS implementations.

Do you really belive a small group of spare time programmers can do what Microsoft could not? With it's army of programmers and unlimited budget Microsoft can build any kind of browser it wants.

It should be clear that Microsoft does not want "to achieve CSS standards compliance". At least not until it has a nasty batch of CSS extensions.

Jesus, another dip wad. It says they are pulling people together to try and make sure it does. I don't care if it 1 or 50, it's better than Microspud's track record in the past. I just love waking up trolls.

No, sorry, Microsoft gets no credit from me for saying it's trying. It does what it wants, and what it wants is "a long road ahead"

Firefox and Opera are not fully standards compliant, they're merely MORE standards compliant than IE6, infact there isn't a browser in any form of major usage that is fully standards compliant. Most of the standards leave a little bit of room for interpretation when it comes to things like rendering. Finally MS has decided to bite the bullet and try to make something that works. Who's to say it won't be more compliant than any of the open source offerings by the time of its release? Only time will tell if MS is gonna bother refining the rendering engine before IE8, but I sincerely hope they do. At least IE7 will go some of the way to making it easier to build a decent website that looks the same in any browser.
Oh, and I do what I want to. It's my choise, not yours.

Opera and Firefox are NOT fully standards compliant, they are merely MORE standards compliant than IE6 (granted a hell of a lot more, but still, get off your high horse!).
The CSS standards are pretty fuzzy and open to individual interpretation when it comes to certain aspects at the moment and CSS3 helps to address this, but no single browser yet incorporates the entire CSS3 functionality.
At least MS is trying for once.

I am not surprised. Sincere standards compliance would be like leaving the barn door open. A new product without a new lock-in is just not the Microsoft way.

We won't see good CSS2 in IE until the "official –ms- prefix" CSS extensions have undermined the purpose of having a standard.

You realize that a lot of today's "standards" were pioneered by MS's proprietary features. Standards come from innovation and use, many standards don't just pop out of thin air.

IE7 bites with CSS, but I still find Opera the most accurate of the big three browsers. (Okay, well Opera is tiny in market share, but a damn fine browser.)

"As we struggle to balance the needs of our user customers with the desires of web developers, we need your help. The only way for us to continue to improve our standards support is to get your help in changing your sites for IE7."

So MS are taking the lazy way out? hey we have a great new browser, get your site to work with it!
They should be consider getting IE7 to work with proper standards, if Firefox and Opera can do it, why can't IE, Sheer laziness i say.

So MS are taking the lazy way out? hey we have a great new browser, get your site to work with it!
They should be consider getting IE7 to work with proper standards, if Firefox and Opera can do it, why can't IE, Sheer laziness i say.

Um, if you reread what was reported, you'll see they are already doing what you ask. "changing your sites for IE7" is another way of saying, changing your sites from the non-standard IE6 way of doing things, to the standards supporting(better supporting) IE7 way of doing things. It is more like "hey, we have a new more standards-compliant browser, get your site closer to standards"

Sheesh, some people won't let up even when MS is attempting to accomplish what they want them to.

Yes, they are trying. I'll give em that. However, even with IE7b3 basic, plain vanilla, standard CSS1 styles have issues. The most common being first-time rendering failures on linked stylesheets. Hitting refresh clears up "most" of them (99%). That seems to be more common in b3 than b2, which is odd, but obviously still in "beta" so we have to allow some slack. What bothers me most about the progression of IE7 betas is that the innovation seems to be dying off. Their focus now is bolting things together rather than bolting new things on. They have a lot of work to do if they want to close the features gap with Firefox and Opera, heck, even Maxthon. I think MS feels IE7 is "good enough" at this point.

I'll believe it when I see it. Particularly with CSS3 around the corner I'm not entirely sure anyone will care if MS ever integrates additional CSS support. Further, I don't think the IE7 "upgrades", with or without CSS fixes, will be enough to keep it from being the inferior browser it already is versus the likes of FireFox and Opera which already have pretty solid CSS support.

"Changing your sites to IE"?! It should be the opposite. What a shame.

Actually, it is changing sites to IE7, which is kinda the opposite if your quote was implying any IE prior to IE7.

As long as IE enjoys a little market share,
it makes business sense for websites
designers to ensure their sites
are fully interoperable between IE, Firefox and Opera. Standards or no standards.

These browsers are all freeware,
they have their plus and minuses.
The wisdom of crowds will decide ultimately
which is better.

Let the masses decide and you get Bush or Hitler.

hmm... so democracy's a sham?

Direct Democracies are; its why we have a three branch checked and balanced, representative democracy...or, at least, are supposed to have.

Direct democracies are too vulnerable to mob mentality and the "tyranny of the masses".