IE7 is realesed,yay. [Archive]

thomasp

20 Oct 2006, 15:09

I used IE7 (was probably a beta version) the other day, and I HATED it. All the menus are in a stupid place - when I actually found them - and it just looked like a bad version of firefox that had been designed by a 5-year old.

What's wrong with putting menus at the top of a window, or even better, permanently at the very top of the screen? Why do they have to be hidden away in a tiny corner of the toolbar?

*Goes back to Safari*

Cyclaws

20 Oct 2006, 15:28

I'll upgrade to it, but Firefox will continue to be my main browser.

AndrewTaylor

20 Oct 2006, 15:59

I'll upgrade to it, but Firefox will continue to be my main browser.

Quite. If you've got to have an insecure and wrong browser forcibly and permanantly wired into the OS, it may as well be the lastest one.

Xinos

20 Oct 2006, 17:04

Minus the tabs there is no way to tell the difference betwhen IE and Firefox, this is a scientific fact, tested and proven.
Ask your dentist and you'll see. Sure some may claim that security is an issue, but I think we all know and can agree on that it's just some anti-corporate internet hippy conspiracy.

Plasma

20 Oct 2006, 17:12

MrBunsy

20 Oct 2006, 17:36

Is that a reason for or against IE?

pilot62

20 Oct 2006, 18:08

Gah, I tried the IE7 beta, I couldn't stand it. Opera still beats it in pretty much every way.

AndrewTaylor

20 Oct 2006, 19:12

Minus the tabs there is no way to tell the difference betwhen IE and Firefox, this is a scientific fact, tested and proven.

I don't know if you're stupid, trolling or both, but whatever the reason you're still posting utter rubbish. For one thing IE has tabs now, genius.

There are all kinds of things IE does that W3C compliant browsers do not do. Microsoft likes these to be called "quirks" or "features" but I call them "defects". The only reason IE appears to work is because people who make websites spend an extra week on them to accomodate Microsoft's ubiquitous and arbitrary whimsy.

Safari, Opera and Firefox aren't perfect either, but they're far, far superior to IE. For a start, they at least try to stick to standards.

IE7 is a good thing only relative to IE6.

MrBunsy

20 Oct 2006, 19:17

I'd have thought you of all people would recognise sarcasm. At least, I hope for Xinos's sake it was sarcastic, can't see what else it was.

Xinos

20 Oct 2006, 20:47

FutureWorm

20 Oct 2006, 21:11

probably because you're a troll http://img315.imageshack.us/img315/3907/emotsshhx0.gif

Xinos

20 Oct 2006, 21:59

Well, perhaps it has turned into some kind of evil circle.

Akuryou13

21 Oct 2006, 04:06

Yes it was sarcasm. I kind of wanted to see if Andrew would attack me or not. My hypothesis was correct.

Not sure why he hates me so. Not letting any sarcasm or jokes slide without taking the chance to prove me wrong while suggesting I am an idiot, cretin, dumb or a troll in the process.

*shrugs*possibly because sarcasm typically requires the person to be sarcastic whereas your statement merely was false. not sarcasm in any way.

Xinos

21 Oct 2006, 12:54

Hnngrh. What about being ironic? Or joking? Or saying something obviously untrue just for the hell of it?

Whatever it was, it's not worth making a big deal out of.

Pigbuster

22 Oct 2006, 00:45

thomasp

22 Oct 2006, 10:53

Didn't they stop making IE for Macintosh?
Yep. And a good thing too.

You just assume I don't ever use a Windows computer. :p

Shockdude

22 Oct 2006, 23:12

...
the only purpose of ie7 for me is that it can play certain flash files (including youtube) without crashing (unlike my firefox), and for windows update

AndrewTaylor

23 Oct 2006, 12:35

Thing is, I can't tell what tone of voice you intend. I'm so used to you instantly and automatically disagreeing with every opinion I hold that I tend to assume that. Especially since if it was sarcasm it was used to agree with every single post above it, which is a very unusual way to use sarcasm.
I kind of wanted to see if Andrew would attack me or not. My hypothesis was correct.
That's a fairly daft defence against trolling, isn't it? "Shoplifting, officer? No, not me. I was just taking this beer to drink later. Drinking beer's not a crime is it?"

Xinos

23 Oct 2006, 13:11

Tricking people into attacking is trolling? Ah well. I figured some level of flaming would be nessisary to qualify.

That's a fairly daft defence against trolling, isn't it? "Shoplifting, officer? No, not me. I was just taking this beer to drink later. Drinking beer's not a crime is it?"

No, I'm not the shoplifter, I'm the police officer who places the beer in a accessable spot to see if anyone atempts to steal it. ;)

Star Worms

23 Oct 2006, 14:46

Does Microsoft know what CSS is yet? Max widths? etc. If not then there's no point in me getting it.

M3ntal

23 Oct 2006, 15:54

Yes, it now supports a lot more CSS. Still not all of it though.

M3ntal

23 Oct 2006, 15:57

Tricking people into attacking is trolling?
Trolling is "provoking arguments on newsgroups or bulletin boards", or "Deliberately posting false information in order to elicit responses from people who really want to help", according to google's definition. So, yes.

wormthingy

23 Oct 2006, 23:52

then microsoft is full of trolls.. "windows 2000, faster than ever" "windows xp, more secure!"

Xinos

23 Oct 2006, 23:58

Well then. Today I have learned a valueable lesson.

Beeing a troll isn't so bad after all =D

RoanShadow

24 Oct 2006, 03:14

I can name a few things wrong with IE7.
1) Steam get Issue's with it
2) Apparently Affects a few of my games
3) Will only run on Direct X 10 (Once Vista comes around) which means Java/Flash/Shockwave will have to update.

franpa

24 Oct 2006, 03:21

your lsat one is wrong... it runs 100% fine on direct x 9.0c...

and signing into http://forums-de.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/frm/f/1601038224 with google translate causes a infinit loading loop :)

bloopy

24 Oct 2006, 04:19

Good thing Microsoft is not CSI, because rotting corpses would be left everywhere. They're finally scraping IE6 off the floor. :p

SupSuper

24 Oct 2006, 12:12

3) Will only run on Direct X 10 (Once Vista comes around) which means Java/Flash/Shockwave will have to update.I don't see how those two are related. In any case, Java/Flash/Shockwave are always updating. :p

AndrewTaylor

24 Oct 2006, 12:30

No, I'm not the shoplifter, I'm the police officer who places the beer in a accessable spot to see if anyone atempts to steal it. ;)

Well then, that's entrapment. It's still illegal. :p

Xinos

24 Oct 2006, 12:33

Topic Change!
If a police offices should perform such an entrapment, would the "victim" be free of charge or would both the theif and the police go to court? Kamikaze police =P

franpa

24 Oct 2006, 13:54

they would both go to court but each will be judged on a different matter.

AndrewTaylor

24 Oct 2006, 14:13

Topic Change!
If a police offices should perform such an entrapment, would the "victim" be free of charge or would both the theif and the police go to court? Kamikaze police =P

As far as I understand, evidence obtained illegally is not admissible in court. But let's meander vaguely back toward the (admittedly rather dull) topic now, shall we?

SupSuper

24 Oct 2006, 15:48

Ok.

IE7 is realesed,yay.

bonz

24 Oct 2006, 15:56

OK.

FF2 is released,yay.

Penguins

24 Oct 2006, 16:13

Ie7 for aussies was out in august sometime not october :rolleyes:

Star Worms

24 Oct 2006, 17:43

That was a beta version.

pilot62

24 Oct 2006, 18:53

Well then, that's entrapment. It's still illegal
Offering an opportunity to commit a crime isn't entrapment, the 'victim' has to be 'induced' to commit it by the law enforcement.
Saying to someone 'hey, why don't you go and grab me that can of beer over there' and then arresting them would be entrapment.

wormthingy

24 Oct 2006, 18:56

*still wonders if the thread title was (a) Sarcasm or (b) a typo, where the "." should have been a "?" *

Cisken1

24 Oct 2006, 19:52

Seriously, the only people who should care about this are people who have to design websites for it.

OH F*** I guess I should prepare to re-write all my css' ...

Star Worms

24 Oct 2006, 20:46

I know what I want for christmas now:)

bloopy

24 Oct 2006, 22:49

Ie7 for aussies
Laughing my ass off! What special features did that version have? Simple sentences and snake protection? :p

WormOfFire

27 Oct 2006, 06:48

*still wonders if the thread title was (a) Sarcasm or (b) a typo, where the "." should have been a "?" *

It was.

IE7 sucks.

Paul.Power

20 Dec 2006, 22:30

Sorry for the thread revival.

Well, I'm at home for Christmas, and due to a bizarre set of circumstances involving Wanadoo being silly and my dad being stubborn, I can't use the Internet on my laptop. So I'm on my parents' one, which doesn't have Firefox. And Dad installed IE7 some time during last week.

Hmm. It could be worse, I guess. It certainly has one or two nice touches - I like the tab that opens a new tab, for example. I know Ctrl-T does the job, but it's nice to have the option - sometimes I'm in a keyboard mood, sometimes a mouse mood. Quick Tabs is also fairly nifty. Firefox could learn a thing or two.

Two things that irritate me:

1. The icons are all over the place. Back and Forward are top left, Refresh and Stop top right (but not quite top right because Search is up there) and rather indistinct. I've only just spotted where Home is, so it's possibly just as well I only ever hit the beggar by accident in Firefox.

2. The Missing Menus. File, Edit and their kin. I've found out how to get them, but it's still unnerving, seeing them below the address bar and suchlike. I'm just too used to seeing them in Windows not to have them.

3. It's not so bad, but the way it opens new tabs - next to the active one, as opposed to the end of the line - threw me rather.

Cisken1

20 Dec 2006, 22:34

OK.

FF2 is released,yay.

FF2's password manager isn't safe anymore, not yay :(

Paul.Power

20 Dec 2006, 22:49

DAMMIT, I SHOULD NOT BE SO DISORIENTATED WHEN LOOKING FOR THE REFRESH BUTTON

*cough*

AndrewTaylor

21 Dec 2006, 13:47

IE7 is quite excellent at tabs, I agree. But unfortunately it's still inexcusably awful at actually rendering webpages, so I'm afraid it still sucks.

pilot62

21 Dec 2006, 16:08

The thing is, IE7 is almost unusable on my PC, it's just so slow, and I have no idea why, as my PC isn't a slow one, and nor is my internet connection. For example, it takes me about 5 minutes to get to the damn home page, which isn't exactly a slow loading page (google). Even then it hangs more often than not before I can actually do anything.
Still, I don't think any of its features are outstanding. Tabs are one of the better things, but they're not great.

Joeyjoejoe

30 Dec 2006, 11:00

Well I do think that Firefox is the best. And tabs are nothing new, I'm pretty sure Firefox had them for a while before IE.

MrBunsy

30 Dec 2006, 13:13

Well I do think that Firefox is the best. And tabs are nothing new, I'm pretty sure Firefox had them for a while before IE.

A while? A while?! It must be well over a year.

Akuryou13

30 Dec 2006, 13:59

Well I do think that Firefox is the best. And tabs are nothing new, I'm pretty sure Firefox had them for a while before IE.IE7's tabs were based off of FireFox when it began to replace IE as the most popular (not sure if it actually did replace it, but it's a close rival, I do know)

pilot62

30 Dec 2006, 15:45

And Opera had tabs years before firefox even existed, but that really doesn't matter. Functionality is more important than originality.

MrBunsy

30 Dec 2006, 17:00

Did the original Mozilla browser have tabs?

Plainplane

30 Dec 2006, 17:13

OK.

WMP11 is released,yay.

Plainplane :)

Paul.Power

30 Dec 2006, 17:49

Did the original Mozilla browser have tabs?It did: I remember using it in the library at Mill Lane Lecture Rooms

MrBunsy

30 Dec 2006, 20:29

Ah, so they've probably been around longer than a year then.
OK.

WMP11 is released,yay.Winamp :P

pilot62

30 Dec 2006, 23:02

Ah, so they've probably been around longer than a year then.

The first publicly available tabbed browser came out in 1996, so it's nothing new really.

I do wonder how Microsoft managed to put off implementing tabs for so long.

Akuryou13

31 Dec 2006, 03:45

Winamp :Ppersonally, I prefer WMP. I like the layout of the library on it. works better for me. WMP11 just made things that much better, I think I'm in love with this new version :D

Joeyjoejoe

31 Dec 2006, 04:14

Well I just found another awesome feature in Firefox. My computer overheated and restarted whilst I was typing this message (the message after this). Then I opened Firefox and there was an option to resume where I was so this page was straight back up again.

The original message was:

Yeah if there's one thing Microsoft is good at then it's Media Players. I do believe that WM11 is the best media player out there.

bonz

31 Dec 2006, 11:37

Yeah if there's one thing Microsoft is good at then it's Media Players. I do believe that WM11 is the best media player out there.
HA!
VLC beats WMP in any way.

AndrewTaylor

31 Dec 2006, 12:08

Yeah if there's one thing Microsoft is good at then it's Media Players. I do believe that WM11 is the best media player out there.
NO. Microsoft are far better at IDEs than they are at media players. Windows does not currently come with a small andnigh-on uncrashable app that can play CDs, MP3s or midis and wavs like the old CDPlayer.exe or mplayer.exe -- or rather, it has them but doesn't tell you and hides them if you browse to them. There's simply no excuse for that. The nearest thing we have is probably Winamp, and that's a little bloated these days.

It depends what you need a programme to do, but the one that comes with the OS should be a little thing that gets the job done without any messing about with media libraries, scanning your computer, or organising a playlist. It shoudln't do visualisation and it shouldn't have skins. It certainly shouldn't download album art.

Plasma

31 Dec 2006, 12:22

It depends what you need a programme to do, but the one that comes with the OS should be a little thing that gets the job done without any messing about with media libraries, scanning your computer, or organising a playlist.
I don't know what the heck you're doing, but my one doesn't need to do all those stuff.

It shoudln't do visualisation and it shouldn't have skins. It certainly shouldn't download album art.
I disagree. Those are all nice features to have!

AndrewTaylor

31 Dec 2006, 12:48

I disagree. Those are all nice features to have!
They are. But so is a spellchecker. That's why Word has one and WordPad doesn't. An OS should come with the basic applications you need to get things done. Anything else -- skins, visualisation, album art and the like -- should be firmly optional. If I want those things, I'll download a program that does them.

Media Player is not the basic, well, media player that I want it to be. Media Player used to be that, but now is a great, sprawling app that invades the whole computer and runs bloody slowly. It's double the download size of Winamp, last I remember checking. There's just no need for any of it.

So now if I want to just play a music file or a CD, what do I do? Media Player takes an age to start and frequently doesn't work anyway, and I haven't got a simple application to just play the file and not bother visualising it all over the place. Generally I use RealPlayer, simply because it has a "play CD" button on it and it doesn't ask me to scan my computer for new videos every coulde of weeks.

I don't know what imaginary software you're using that doesn't bother with that, but if it's Media Player you must have a lot more patience with its options screen than I do.

Plasma

31 Dec 2006, 13:13

They are. But so is a spellchecker. That's why Word has one and WordPad doesn't. An OS should come with the basic applications you need to get things done. Anything else -- skins, visualisation, album art and the like -- should be firmly optional. If I want those things, I'll download a program that does them.

Media Player is not the basic, well, media player that I want it to be. Media Player used to be that, but now is a great, sprawling app that invades the whole computer and runs bloody slowly. It's double the download size of Winamp, last I remember checking. There's just no need for any of it.

So now if I want to just play a music file or a CD, what do I do? Media Player takes an age to start and frequently doesn't work anyway, and I haven't got a simple application to just play the file and not bother visualising it all over the place. Generally I use RealPlayer, simply because it has a "play CD" button on it and it doesn't ask me to scan my computer for new videos every coulde of weeks.

I don't know what imaginary software you're using that doesn't bother with that, but if it's Media Player you must have a lot more patience with its options screen than I do.
Well, let's see about me:
1: It took, literally, 3 seconds to run, and isn't slowing down any other programs.
2: The only message I get is a 'would you like to check for a new version' message once a week. (Which I really need to use more)
3: Both the visualisations and album art can be turned off by right-clicking them.
4: Even if you don't want to have it sprawling across the screen, all you have to do is click that bound button with an arrow and box on it at the bottom right of the screen.

Wait, are you sure you're really using Windows Media Player?

bonz

31 Dec 2006, 13:40

Hmm...
WMP uses up to 27MB while Winamp uses 8MB of RAM, both playing the same MP3 file.

Besides, I can control Winamp with my keyboard's extra buttons via a plugin.

Another big joke is that Windows doesn't come with a software DVD player by default. You have to pay extra to make WMP able to play DVDs.
VLC can play DVDs is a mere 9MB download.

WMP is a 25MB download. Wianmp plus VLC are 5.6MB + 9MB = 14.6.
With those two players you have covered about any video and audio file type and still leaves you with 10.4MB of available bandwidth for porn to watch. :rolleyes:

(Quicktime and RealPlayer are equally bloated and feature loaden players in my eyes. And I hate both their proprietary formats. :p)

AndrewTaylor

31 Dec 2006, 14:01

Hmm...
WMP uses up to 27MB while Winamp uses 8MB of RAM, both playing the same MP3 file.
There we go. Nothing more needs to be said than this. Where is Windows' inbuilt 4MB media player? Answer: nowhere to be seen. So why bother with a huge 27MB programme? Running before you can walk, that is.

At least it doesn't have Real Message Center, though...

MrBunsy

31 Dec 2006, 14:14

Akuryou13

31 Dec 2006, 14:42

Meh, WMP looks so ugly and confusing, all I want is to play music files, including Ogg and FLAC. Which is easy peasy in Winamp, but Media Player will do all sorts of bizzare things after spending ages loading.for one, the new version of WMP looks quite nice. the new revamp makes it quite sleek indeed, I'll post a picture below.

as for it taking forever to load, I pity the quality of your computer if WMP takes a lot out of your power. granted, it takes far more than most media players that are out there, but if it's bogging down your computer then that's a problem you should be addressing, not microsoft.

anyway, here's a pic of WMP11:

http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/9083/wmpscreenxh0.th.png (http://img226.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wmpscreenxh0.png)

AndrewTaylor

31 Dec 2006, 14:58

granted, it takes far more than most media players that are out there, but if it's bogging down your computer then that's a problem you should be addressing, not microsoft.

No, that's Microsoft's problem. This why-optimise-your-code-when-computers-will-be-fast-enough-to-run-it-next-year-anyway attitude is the entire problem. Not everyone has a fast PC and not everyone wants one. Microsoft's role as OS vendor is to cater for the basic needs of everyone, not the inflated whimsy of a few power-users. Microsoft are failing to supply basic components of a good OS here, and instead are concentrating on things that look shiny. Which nobody needs and very few want. It's a programme that should, if it's any good, be minimised most of the time anyway. Why does it need to look nice (which frankly, it doesn't)?

Hell, even the people advocating WMP here are doing so on the basis that most of it can be disabled.

Akuryou13

31 Dec 2006, 15:01

No, that's Microsoft's problem. This why-optimise-your-code-when-computers-will-be-fast-enough-to-run-it-next-year-anyway attitude is the entire problem. Not everyone has a fast PC and not everyone wants one. Microsoft's role as OS vendor is to cater for the basic needs of everyone, not the inflated whimsy of a few power-users. Microsoft are failing to supply basic components of a good OS here, and instead are concentrating on things that look shiny. Which nobody needs and very few want. It's a programme that should, if it's any good, be minimised most of the time anyway. Why does it need to look nice (which frankly, it doesn't)?

Hell, even the people advocating WMP here are doing so on the basis that most of it can be disabled.now, YOU I don't disagree with. WMP should be a stripped down media player like WordPad is a stripped down writing tool. I completely agree with you on that, but just judging WMP as a program in general, it is a rather good media playing program.

that's why I quoted Bunsy instead of you. I agree with your points completely, WMP should be basic. but, just as a media playing program, WMP is a rather good media player.

M3ntal

31 Dec 2006, 16:57

Media Player Classic, people.

MrBunsy

31 Dec 2006, 17:25

You mean the one which used to come with 98?
for one, the new version of WMP looks quite nice. the new revamp makes it quite sleek indeed, I'll post a picture below.

as for it taking forever to load, I pity the quality of your computer if WMP takes a lot out of your power. granted, it takes far more than most media players that are out there, but if it's bogging down your computer then that's a problem you should be addressing, not microsoft.

anyway, here's a pic of WMP11:

http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/9083/wmpscreenxh0.th.png (http://img226.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wmpscreenxh0.png)

It doesn't exactly bog my pc down, not on my decent pc anyway, but Winamp loads an awful lot faster. WMP11 looks a little better, but Winamp is still far far simpler.

farazparsa

31 Dec 2006, 22:58

It seems that even though Microsoft says that the speed is because of the "anti-virus enforcers," I still think that they're covering up for their own sloppiness.

This reminds me...
http://www.smackjeeves.com/images/uploaded/comics/4a4dbb4d8784.png
All of them can be found at this place. (http://bluescreen.thewebcomic.com/) Updated 4 times a week.