Internet Explorer 7 Released

"David H. Lipman" wrote:

From: "S. Pidgorny MVP"

|
| As a business, they must be interested in making money. They also give free
| Internet access in certain areas - I bet they don't have enough
| clickodollars generated by that service to cover the cost. And we have the
| whole Web 2.0 story clearly catalysed by Google.
|
| Will they actupon the abuse complaint? Not sure.
|

I ahve gotten them to take action. It is NOT easy. However, they can and will if enough
abuse and subsequent complaints are filed.

I'd bet if Google was more responsive to complaints about spam originating from
Google Groups and Gmail, the world would see a *considerable* drop in numbers.

Notan

"John H Meyers" wrote in message
news
[newsgroups trimmed/expanded to related groups]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 01:16:43 -0600, Roger Abell [MVP] wrote:

[IE7's] Looks are the minor portion, as are usability feature changes.
Most people will not notice the core improvements or how
they impact securability, except by sites/codes that are broken
until their supplier fixes them. Since MS had a very lengthy
campaign to get the work [word?] out and let providers fix their sites
and codes well ahead of IE 7 release, I just use it to measure
the degree of consumer concern of those providers.
I also gladly leave those providers behind, at least for the
time being, and enjoy the bit of enhanced ease of mind from
leaving IE 6 behind.

Does this mean that Microsoft needs the cooperation of
web designers to protect Windows, while other browsers
have instead concentrated on making their browsers
immune to security vulnerabilities, without disabling them
from being useful with the existing world of sites out there?

That's a really twisted reading of the piece you quoted.

Microsoft needs the cooperation of a number of people to protect Windows.
For instance, they need the cooperation of users, who will cooperate by
downloading and installing new, more secure, versions of Internet Explorer
as they come out, whether they're upgrades or patches.

Users will be disinclined to upgrade if their favourite web sites don't work
on the upgraded version of Internet Explorer, whether it's because the web
site checks the UserAgent header for exact matching to a version number of
Internet Explorer, or because the web site relies on bugs in IE6's rendering
of CSS elements and subsequently looks ugly on IE7.

So, yes, website designers do have some impact in how well users are
secured.

Is Microsoft the dictator of web standards, which if followed
would solve the compatibility problems, or is Microsoft
a major violator of web standards, which is the bane
of so many webmasters who would rather not have to
cater to the separate dictates of one single company?

In many ways, yes, Microsoft dictates web standards - if your web site
doesn't work, or is difficult to use, or ugly, in the majority browser, you
will cut yourself off from the majority of your audience.

You have a choice as a web designer - you can stick with your design
"because the standard says this should work", or you can make it work with
whatever browser is in use by the majority of your readers. Since web
design is generally geared at a mass market, you can't reliably tell users
"this site only works on Nobby's web browser version 2.321" and expect them
all to download and run that version, no matter how good its adherence to
documented standards may be. Users will simply avoid your web site.

I don't think you have a good argument in this case, approaching Microsoft
as some evil flouter of standards, given the significant work they have done
in IE7 to more correctly support existing CSS standards.

By the way, I'm using Windows 2000, which is still supposed to be
"supported" by Microsoft, yet IE7 doesn't take Windows 2000
into consideration, which seems in part to be a marketing
device to try to force users to buy more MS software
to replace inadequate previous versions that MS is deserting,

Windows 2000 has been in "Extended Support" (i.e. out of "Mainstream
Support") since June 30, 2005. That's eighteen months ago. Extended Support
is essentially the "come on, really, this operating system is way too old"
phase, during which you should already have planned your upgrade.

As you say, it's now an inadequate older version of Windows, and your system
is patched over patches on top of other patches. Microsoft isn't forcing you
to buy more software; but they're not giving you new features for free any
more. You've exceeded the lifecycle of what you've paid for. [Security
patches are still available - but only for the next six months from Windows
Update; after that, you'll have to search for them the old-fashioned way.]

as well as having to replace hardware as well to meet its
extraordinary demands on wasting hardware resources for itself;

Are you really proud to be running on hardware and software that was
originally designed for the threat landscape of the last century? Windows
2000's core is seven years old - that was the last time it was reviewed by
its developers as a whole package. Since then, it's only received patches
and fixes.

I suspect that all this is doing much to support a desertion
of MS by people adopting other alternatives,
who are just as glad to leave Microsoft behind.

How long do those alternatives offer full-on support for?

Alun.
~~~~

"John H Meyers" wrote in message
news
[newsgroups trimmed to those actually related]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:02:13 -0600:

I note that you don't mention whether the cruise lines you mention
support FireFox - just that it works.

The fact that a site actually works with all (or most) browsers
is de facto "supporting" those browsers;

Then those sites are also supporting IE7, right now.

Alun.
~~~~

Hmm, there was not a considerable jump in global spam from before Google
Groups and Gmail were part of the mix, what makes you think that removing
them would provide a global impact in significantly reducing spam?

bb

Nolan wrote:

I'd bet if Google was more responsive to complaints about spam originating from
Google Groups and Gmail, the world would see a *considerable* drop in numbers.

"John H Meyers" wrote in message
news
[newsgroups trimmed/expanded to related groups]

[IE7's] Looks are the minor portion, as are usability feature changes.
Most people will not notice the core improvements or how
they impact securability, except by sites/codes that are broken
until their supplier fixes them. Since MS had a very lengthy
campaign to get the word out and let providers fix their sites
and codes well ahead of IE 7 release, I just use it to measure
the degree of consumer concern of those providers.

Does this mean that Microsoft needs the cooperation of
web designers to protect Windows, while other browsers
have instead concentrated on making their browsers
immune to security vulnerabilities, without disabling them
from being useful with the existing world of sites out there?


Of course not.
It does mean that those availing themselves of "features",
or loose behaviors that are now tighten need to adjust.
Many of those same sites have been "broken" for me for
quite some time, as I would not use IE 6 in an off-the-shelf
condition.

Is Microsoft the dictator of web standards, which if followed
would solve the compatibility problems, or is Microsoft
a major violator of web standards, which is the bane
of so many webmasters who would rather not have to
cater to the separate dictates of one single company?


Sure, where have you been ?
In reality, we are still seeing the legacy from the era when
Netscape dominated and MS pulled out the plugs to try to
introduce new, compelling, rich and dynamic behaviors.
Remember the days, Netscape's JSS, etc., no common DOM,
the emergence of ActiveX, etc.. What was that? 1997 ?
With this release, MS actually has moved more toward the
sandbox default that some of us have advised since the push
to discover how to be dynamic, functional and persisting,
but loose benefits of the Mosaic syle sandbox.

By the way, I'm using Windows 2000, which is still supposed to be
"supported" by Microsoft, yet IE7 doesn't take Windows 2000
who are just as glad to leave Microsoft behind.

New product is not developed for SKU that are not in mainstream
lifecycle. I am glad, as it allows concentration of the dev resource
where they want to be, on gen next.

I'm on my 11th year online and IE7 is the best yet. No compatability issues
with my Win XP Media Edition nor my other machines XP Pro. I esp like the
popups that come up warning you if you've clicked on a phishing* webpage (*
phishing sites are those posing as authentic websites typically sent as a
link in an Email and require you to enter some personal information which
may cause you to be a victim of identity theft)
Even with years of internet experience I been so busy sometimes that I've
almost dropped my guard and went to one of those false websites before. I
would recommend getting the IE7 download ASAP from the security stand point
alone.
OK, I'm off the soapbox now.
Thanks
Steve in OK

"Roger Abell [MVP]" wrote in message
...
"Carole" wrote in message
...
Roger Abell [MVP] wrote:

The official distribution, if one prefers not to use Microsoft Update

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/...s/default.mspx

(for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 only)

Or better still, buy a Mac!


euuuuh !
--
ra

"Hyes' Hubby" wrote in message
...
I'm on my 11th year online and IE7 is the best yet. No compatability
issues with my Win XP Media Edition nor my other machines XP Pro.

(snip) I do like it , but I have the latest version available and it hangs.
It will stop responding
and freeze during surfing. I would think others would experience this too.

On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 19:55:53 -0600, Hyes' Hubby wrote:

I'm on my 11th year online and IE7 is the best yet.

I esp like the popups that come up warning you
if you've clicked on a phishing webpage

It's about time that IE has begun catching up with Opera
http://www.opera.com

Season's greetings and highest spirits to everyone.

-[ ]-

I like Mozilla Firefox. It is more powerful and more compartible browser
for Windows.
Carole :

Roger Abell [MVP] wrote:

The official distribution, if one prefers not to use Microsoft Update

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/...s/default.mspx

(for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 only)

Or better still, buy a Mac!