IE7 released!

[Tertsi]

I can't really test it myself on this computer because I don't have XP. So I'd like some indie devs' opinions about the browser and how it compares to FireFox.

Could someone please test the sites in my signature with it?

Check it out at www.microsoft.com

[jankoM]

From what I heard from designer I work with it still supports less standards (xhtml, css2, the padding bug...) than mozilla 1.0 did years ago. But there are tabs... woowsie...

[soniCron]

From the IE 7 Homepage (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/default.mspx?mg_ID=10010):
we heard you
you wanted it easier and more secure
*sigh* No. We wanted it more standards compliant... and more secure. Oh well. I'll be looking forward to testing this out. On another machine. That I don't care about. Just in case.

[adamw]

But... but... Firefox has everything I want.

I don't see *anything* in IE7 that makes me want to even give it a chance to infect my oh-so-clean and neat computer.

[cyrus_zuo]

Been using it for several months here (the release candidates).

My experience is that many websites have issues that will need to be corrected. Mostly the problem has occured with larger websites (like Yahoo) and the guess here is it is occuring b/c they have code in their page that checks your browser version and acts accordingly. With IE7, what they did to make things work better in IE6 might cause a problem.

(not seeing any issues with the sites in your sig)

[TamLin]

As Peter Fisk points out (http://vistasmalltalk.wordpress.com/2006/10/19/internet-explorer-7-released/):

IE7 will soon be rolled out as an automatic update.
The update will install the libraries for .NET and the Windows Presentation Framework (WPF).

This will be a great boon for indie developers using .NET.

[gosub]

The update will install the libraries for .NET
Please, Microsoft, let it be .NET 2.0 (instead of .NET 1.1). Which version did it install?

-Jeremy

[Frozen In Ice]

An exploit has already been found in IE7 and for those using Opera, and exploit was found in it as well. Check for updates and patches.

[TamLin]

Please, Microsoft, let it be .NET 2.0 (instead of .NET 1.1). Which version did it install?
I haven't installed IE7, but I've read that it uses .NET 3.0 (which includes WPF).

[gosub]

I haven't installed IE7, but I've read that it uses .NET 3.0 (which includes WPF).
Good enough!

-Jeremy

[anttti]

...mmmkay, right after I clicked the link to the IE7 homepage that soniCron wrote, Avast jumps up and says: "A virus was found!" The path to the file is http://rad.microsoft.com/ADSAdClient31......etc etc, and is called VBS:Zulu. A worm, it says. Perhaps Avast just overreacts to some VB script, but....perhaps I don't install IE7 this time.

Oh. And about the standard compatibility of IE7. It _is_ a better performer than IE6 was, but not anything to get too excited about:
IE6 -> IE7
CSS 2.1: 51% -> 57%
DOM: 50% -> 51%
HTML 4.01: 80% -> 81%
http://www.webdevout.net/browser_support_summary.php?uas=IE6-IE7-FX1_5-OP9

But if it actually installs .NET 2.0 or greater, I'm all joy!

[gosub]

FYI, I uninstalled .NET 2.0, then installed IE7. It did not install .NET 2.0 or .NET 3.0.

-Jeremy

[TamLin]

FYI, I uninstalled .NET 2.0, then installed IE7. It did not install .NET 2.0 or .NET 3.0
Thanks for the report. I asked Peter Fisk about the link between IE7 and .NET (http://vistasmalltalk.wordpress.com/2006/10/21/ie7-deployment-update/#comment-431). His reply:
IE7 doesn’t need the .Net libraries for standard HTML - it probably contains an upgraded MSHTML rendering engine that was included with IE6.

IE7 1.0 either has a subset of .Net or a .Net 3.0 bootstrapper that requires a user confirmation to load.

I have heard both versions, and I am not certain which is right.
I searched for more information, with little success. I guess we'll have to wait before we know for certain.

[Sol_HSA]

Hm, after installing ie7, I downloaded some random piece of software with it, unzipped, and clicked on the EXE. This resulted in a warning dialog saying that the software is not signed.. I guess that's the future for all software (not just directx) then. Who wants to start paying for signatures?

[Kaos]

IE 7 is slow, even slower than IE 6. Staying with Opera for me. I think that there will be a problem with MS autoupdating computers with IE 7, many users are "used to" IE 6, and will not like it as much then others will adapt.

More than likely, if they plan to add it to auto-updates, they bring IE 6 back to the drawing board and later offer it as "IE Classic", that is just a rumor that I heard, but it makes perfect sense.

[StormcloudCreations]

IE 7 is slow, even slower than IE 6. Staying with Opera for me...

Really? Slower? It's a good 25% faster for me (I have Cable Internet, 3.2Ghz, 1GB RAM and had the latest updated IE6 before); websites load up much quicker. So far so good in my case; I like the tabs, feeds built in and have not had trouble with websites so far, and I visit many. :)

[walkal]

While we might have reservations about Microsoft forcing IE7 on people, from the Web developer's point of view, it's probably good news. If you upgrade your site in a year's time, you might not have to worry about testing in IE6, because no-one will be using IE6 any more.

Testing on multiple versions of IE is always a nuisance, because there's no convenient way of running more than one version on the same machine.

[Fost]

Firefox 2 is out now:

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/

The spell checker is brilliant! worth it just for that. As I'm typing right now, any words I spell incorrectly are underlined in red and if I right click them it suggests a replacement! That's just too cool.

Tested IE7 on my site, and certain rollovers are slower than ie6 (check http://www.moonpod.com/ the buttons on the left were ok in ie6, but are now laggy in ie 7). there still seem to be CSS margin bugs too. :(

I honestly don't understand how anyone who owns a website can do without firefox + the html validator addon (just look at your website to see the errors - inspired!)

[TamLin]

Peter Fisk has posted a correction (http://vistasmalltalk.wordpress.com/2006/10/30/ie7-downloads-correction/) about the relationship between the IE7 installer and the .NET libraries. His amendment matches what I've read elsewhere:
It appears that my earlier statements about the forthcoming IE7 distribution were incorrect.

The IE7 distribution will NOT automatically install the .Net 3.0 libraries - this will have to be authorized by the user.

IE7 will be able to recognize the XBAP (Executable Browser Application) file type, and will prompt for installation of the .Net libraries if they are not already installed.
Which is better than nothing, especially if your game is deployed in the browser, but not nearly as convenient as being able to depend on having .NET pre-installed.

[Pyabo]

Which is better than nothing, especially if your game is deployed in the browser, but not nearly as convenient as being able to depend on having .NET pre-installed.

But hey, aren't we all upgrading to Vista just as soon as it hits the street?

...

What's that noise... ? Is that... crickets?

[Diragor]

I honestly don't understand how anyone who owns a website can do without firefox + the html validator addon (just look at your website to see the errors - inspired!)

I feel the same way about the Display Element Information feature of the Web Developer Toolbar (for Firefox). It's a HUGE time saver when working with CSS. That toolbar is quite useful in many, many ways but that feature steals the show.

[oNyx]

While we might have reservations about Microsoft forcing IE7 on people, from the Web developer's point of view, it's probably good news. If you upgrade your site in a year's time, you might not have to worry about testing in IE6, because no-one will be using IE6 any more.

Testing on multiple versions of IE is always a nuisance, because there's no convenient way of running more than one version on the same machine.

Hmyea. Dropping support for IE5 (five) is of course welcome. And 7... well, it finally supports png transparency (quantisized ones too). And maybe even CSS1.0 (one point zero) completely.

As others said elsewhere... it would have been a cool browser in 2002.