IE7 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community] >> OutFront Discoveries



Message

Tailslide -> IE7 (3/28/2006 12:36:29)

I couldn't find this posted anywhere else here so thought I'd post this here just in case anyone's missed this.

You'll probably remember the recently released IE7 beta and how the general suggestion was not to panic - wait until the actual product before fixing issues etc so as not to go to unnecessary effort.

Well aparently the IE7 rendering engine is as done as it'll ever be as far as CSS goes. We're not getting anything more out of 'em so we best start making sure that any hacks previously used to cope with the older IE inabilities do not now cause problems with IE7.

Any new additions to IE7 before actual launch will be in the shape of additional security fixes (presumably disconnecting itself from the internet).




womble -> RE: IE7 (3/28/2006 14:36:01)

quote:

Any new additions to IE7 before actual launch will be in the shape of additional security fixes (presumably disconnecting itself from the internet).

[:D]

I read earlier today that the consumer release of Vista's now been delayed until January 2007 and M$ are being a little cagey about the reasons for it (but it's rumoured to be security related), but an XP version of IE7 will be available before Christmas - mind you it didn't say which Christmas...



spitfire -> RE: IE7 (3/28/2006 14:44:04)

[:D]



BobbyDouglas -> RE: IE7 (3/28/2006 23:18:50)

quote:

mind you it didn't say which Christmas...

- lol.

Anyone know if IE7 is going to be released as a required windows update, or is it something people need to actually upgrade manually?



Tailslide -> RE: IE7 (3/29/2006 5:27:50)

Don't know - but they definitely want to get rid of IE6 as soon as possible as IE7 overwrites it - so possibly they'll add it to a SP - although, that said, it's likely to confuse a lot of people as the interface does look different.

Although I'm a bit disappointed about the stuff still missing from IE7 - at least they're giving us 6 months grace to test before launching it. Also it's a "good thing" that it overwrites IE6 so that hopefully in a few years we won't end up with the situation we've got now where we're coding for crappy MS browsers all the way back to IE4.



dpf -> RE: IE7 (3/29/2006 9:01:30)

from the browser perspective, M$ has certainly not appeared very commited to valid coding but.. as I begin to delve into asp.net, one of the first things i read was that (using their wysiwyg editor), if you go to html view and write your code and then switch to design view and back, it will have changed your code to xhtml automatically. hhmmm, wonder if that is a prelude to a FP change down the road? i certainly dont know - just thought id throw that out there



Tailslide -> RE: IE7 (3/29/2006 9:32:08)

I've never been near asp.net so I can't say from personal experience. I do know that it gets a lot of criticism regarding it's mark-up in many of the circulars I get from various members of the WSG (web standards group).



dpf -> RE: IE7 (3/29/2006 9:50:00)

quote:

gets a lot of criticism regarding it's mark-up in many of the circulars I get from various members of the WSG (web standards group).
and i certainly have nothing to dispute that with....



Tailslide -> RE: IE7 (3/29/2006 10:14:04)

Problem is that from what I've seen the types that emphasise validity, accessibility, semantics etc don't seem to be big on ASP.net - what would be useful is someone who knows enough about both to be able to comment.



dpf -> RE: IE7 (3/29/2006 10:20:29)

quote:

don't seem to be big on ASP.net
big companies that do big projects are big on asp.net. i search one dominant IT contractor site recently... 5 jobs for ASP programmers; 12 for PHP; 520 for ASP.NEt.

i think a lot of the "validation" people are essentially "front-end" page designers - not back end server side folks and those who are, lean more heavily to open source - thus PHP. PHP is moving toward object-oriented programming instead of just scripting. for big projects, scripting is to slow since it is interpreted; i.e. each line is converted and then executed each time a visitor calls it whereas OO code is compiled into executable code and stored on the server as executable code and is swiftly executed each time its called



Tailslide -> RE: IE7 (3/29/2006 10:32:31)

I agree - most seem into PHP and mySQL although I do know a few that work with what is probably ASP classic.

It would be useful if there was a decent alternative to ASP.net as the big companies do seem to lean towards it. More choice, more opportunities, more value for money etc etc blah blah blah.



dpf -> RE: IE7 (3/29/2006 10:47:05)

quote:

It would be useful if there was a decent alternative to ASP.net as the big companies do seem to lean
well Java is still big on the "big stage" - ASP.NET was intended to compete with java. in fact, those who know much more than I say that C# (which MS developed for asp.net) is a copy of java. PHP 5.0 has object oriented programming which makes it an option "if' open source overall is able to make strides into thecorparate world. Macromedia's Cold Fusion is a powerful solution but expensive and not a major player ( except as i hear in universities)

small web projects - the type we on OF are involved in, should be quite satisfied with ASP or PHP for a long time



Tailslide -> RE: IE7 (3/29/2006 10:53:21)

Ah yes CF I forgot about that! Costs a fortune doesn't it! Now I have seen some nice, accessible, valid applications done in CF - Trading Eye for instance.

I thought Java was dying out these days - that's probably just applets etc I guess.

I have to say I rather like PHP - it's "friendly" in comparsion to JS and the like anyway!

Have I hijacked my own thread? Oh dear! [:-]



dpf -> RE: IE7 (3/29/2006 11:10:48)

quote:

I thought Java was dying out these days - that's probably just applets etc I guess.
Java is an icredibly rich, complex and diverse programming environement. java applets are little snippets that were intended to be widely and easily used. to some extend, MS sabotaged them (afterSun sued MS) and windows no longer comes with the necessary "java virtual machine" in active status (its present but you have to know to activate it). also, programming applets isnt user friendly so it didnt connect with small web developers. finally, motion was one of the allures of applets and Flash does it better and easier.

on the other hand, Java as a full featured compiled language is still in use in big shops as are jsp - java server pages (now you know where the name asp came from) but microsoft has (after they got the idea from PARC and Apple) been more attuned to drag and drop visual programming (see visual basic et.al) and asp.net is very much in that realm whereas java is coder intense.



davids -> RE: IE7 (3/29/2006 20:05:27)

It's a bit strange to see people bashing MS on an FP support site. I started off in FP, and moved on to ASP.

As the requirements of my customers became more advanced, I took the plunge and hired a programmer. He convinced me to move to ASP.NET. For large applications that are used on several sites, it has been a good move.

CF is a no-go. That's like talking about FileManager. Hosting alternatives are sparse. I can't tell all customers to go to one of the few hosts in a country that support it, and programmers are equally sparse.

PHP is a scripting language that is just not up to the way advanced applications need to be developed. Java was much less advanced a couple years ago, and programmers were also hard to find. A lot of people argue from principle, especially those that like to write M$, but don't write $UN.

As a person that has to run a business, practicality is key. Can good programmers be found cheaply? Do hosts support it? Do tools exist that allow quick development with source control? Are these backed by anybody that you can turn to? With three programmers in three different countries, those are my concerns.

Sometimes we turn to open source to solve specific problems. Some of them are solid, inovative programs, but all to often those are solutions that have been in beta for a long time with no release date. Who can base their business on that?

Just trying to add another perspective.



Tailslide -> RE: IE7 (3/30/2006 2:24:05)

This might be a FP forum but we don't all use FP or indeed any MS product - some of us hang around here because we like the people (well there's no accounting for taste is there!).

From a web designer's point of view MS products leave a lot to be desired - they're not as modern as the alternatives.

From a business person's point of view - surely choice is key. If there's only one product available to do a task then you're stuck with moving at their pace, paying their price etc etc. If there's a choice then you're likely to get more competition between the companies and probably more innovation and better value for the customer. A good example is IE7 (or in fact IE 6.1 as I like to think of it)- what improvements they're making is due to pressure from competitors.

Open source is nice - (I like PHP and it does what I need it to at my end of the market) but quite often the documentation is patchy and in general you're at the mercy of enthusiasts rather than a more "business-like" group. I think that there needs to be more "paid for" competition for MS. I think this would benefit everyone and would improve MS products in general.



dpf -> RE: IE7 (3/30/2006 11:10:18)

quote:

It's a bit strange to see people bashing MS on an FP support site.
lol..this thread was awfully mild compared to others



davids -> RE: IE7 (3/30/2006 11:22:31)

quote:

lol..this thread was awfully mild compared to others

Yes, I know that. Back to the subject, our experience has been that our solution runs pretty well in IE6 and Firefox. Not perfect, but usable.

Our main problems have been with non-MS bits we've brought in, like a special Drop-down List (<select>) to overcome IE's bug that you cannot select an item by typing in more than one character.

In general I think the CSS differences are much less important for applications, not just for application programmers.



Tailslide -> RE: IE7 (3/30/2006 11:47:52)

quote:

ORIGINAL: davids
In general I think the CSS differences are much less important for applications, not just for application programmers.


That may well be the case - they're bloomin' annoying for website designers though!



MichaelEdwards -> RE: IE7 (3/30/2006 19:09:51)

I primarly work in Visual Studio using C#. The main problem with VS and its WYSIWYG is that it creates tons of rubbish and add its too your code. If you flick to code view you have to spend ages correcting missing tags, formatting changes, font tags etc. We now primarly work in the code view and only rearly venture into design view. Another problem is that it uses what is called MSGridLayout, this seems to be Microsofts own invention and has as little to do with reality of web design as possible.

Other problems with VS include some of the auto features it has, e.g. validation summaries, system generated javascript. These create tons of rubbish HTML at run time which you can do nothing about. We have had to comprimise. We are currently using VS2003 and I hope VS2005 solves some of the issues.

Back to the main thread point, has anyone notice how IE7 now looks a lot like Firefox? Just a little more gloss. From my experimenting there are still lots of issues with the CSS rendering but it is a vast improvement. Its still falls short and I can't see it slowing down Firefox's expansion that much. On all our projects we now add the line "Viewed best in Mozilla Firefox" with a link. I think (and hope) that Firefox will spread to the masses.



dpf -> RE: IE7 (3/30/2006 19:19:21)

excellent contribution michael



davids -> RE: IE7 (3/30/2006 19:35:34)

quote:

The main problem with VS and its WYSIWYG is that it creates tons of rubbish and add its too your code...Another problem is that it uses what is called MSGridLayout, this seems to be Microsofts own invention and has as little to do with reality of web design as possible.


Well, yes, that's true. We only use code view and skip the MSGrid Layout.

I really can't see telling people what browser to use. It reminds me of the Netscape v. IE wars. You mean to tell users that they should use a more 'compliant' browser, but I'm afraid that for the user it comes off more like, "sorry, we couldn't get this to work with what you use."

You are telling 90% of the users they are using the wrong browser. Some might download Firefox, but the vast majority will skip it or be put off. From their perspective if it works, who cares? If it doesn't that's your fault.

Uh-oh, this is degenerating into one of those browser war threads. [:)]



BobbyDouglas -> RE: IE7 (3/30/2006 20:59:29)

Let's try to keep things on topic. [8|]



Tailslide -> RE: IE7 (3/31/2006 2:28:23)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MichaelEdwards
still falls short and I can't see it slowing down Firefox's expansion that much. On all our projects we now add the line "Viewed best in Mozilla Firefox" with a link. I think (and hope) that Firefox will spread to the masses.


That's really interesting Michael - thanks for that perspective.

Unfortunately for a while at least FF will lose out to IE7 as people upgrade (or are upgraded) to the new better interface. Tabbed browsing etc etc (don't know - are they planning extensions? Probably not, too little control) will improve the browser's usability to the average person so that FF seems irrelevant. Also as people upgrade to Vista they may well not bother with FF.

The question will be whether MS can keep the security of IE7 at an acceptable level as I think this was the reason that a lot of users switched.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.125