It's a beta, what do you expect?
I expected better than this. Public betas (pre-release versions) may well contain some non-critical bugs or even the potential for crashes, but they should never contain critical vulnerabilities such as the execution of arbitrary code.
Nah, it's beta - you've got to expect some problems. I've been using it for about a day now, and other than a few small usability issues (read=me being picky), I haven't had many problems. It did crash on me when I tried to launch Yahoo!Messenger, though.
And this has to be front page news because why?
Get over it. It's beta. Stop trying to find fault with anything Microsoft.
I would have to agree with skunker... it is beta. I think Firefox still has vulnerabilites popping up once in a while.
|I haven't had many problems. It did crash on me when I tried to launch Yahoo!Messenger, though. |
otherwise, howz it? worth trying?
|And this has to be front page news because why? |
Seriously. Beta = bugs. IE6 still has critical bugs now and then, so why would you expect that IE7 *BETA* be perfect?
I notice how the title, "Bug Reports on IE7 Already" fails to mention that IE7 is in a beta stage. This should be corrected, to attempt some type of objectivity especially for a front page item.
Beta = Bugs. People should just stop calling software Beta and go with the word Bugs. I don't think I've ever programmed a piece of software that required multiple patches. Its just part of the life cycle of any software.
Considering that, if you're an IE user, you need to entirely replace your existing IE installation to try IE7, it probably shouldn't have arbitrary code execution bugs. Crashers, display issues and rendering bugs, yeah. But code execution?
Bug Reports on IE7 Already
engine, what are beta versions for?
Microsoft Haters on the loose again
hehe, don't shoot the messenger. ;)
If you're testing it, like me, it's worth keeping track of the bugs and issues. After all, it's a major product.
The news really is about the huge number of folks testing the beta and the swamping. A public beta is for sure going to cause a lot more attention and reports.
I am certainly not bashing MS. Good for them, and let's have more public betas.
|Bug Reports on IE7 Already |
I'm with everybody else--this headline sounds like serious Anti-Microsoft propgranda.
The word Beta should be in the title, and the word "Already" should be taken out. A better headline would be:
|Bug Reports on IE7's Public Beta |
I have noticed that this forum seems to love to bash Microsoft while praising Google and FireFox. Personally, I like all three.
I know its not cool to say - but I love Microsoft. If it wasn't for MS, I would have never become involved with computers/Internet in the first place. They opened up a whole new world to me (and a lot of my customers)
Oh jdancing ... that was so not cool ... ;)
Seriously, though, it's kind of like Ford issuing a new 'beta' car that has issues with exploding gas tanks. You'd think that addressing an issue as important and well-documented as holes that allow arbitrary code execution would be a top priority for MS, and would have occupied a much more fundamental position in their code development.
Of course there are bugs ... but why do they look so familiar ...? Have they learned so little?
And you gotta love this dodge:
|The browser is also unable to contact several online banking sites. Microsoft attributed this to a browser check which requires Internet Explorer 6 to be built into the online banking application. These issues are unrelated to the browser but require a fix by the bank. |
And this remarkable remark, attributed to 'the vendor':
|The vendor is also asking website operators to test their sites for the forthcoming browser that is scheduled for release by this summer. |
So it's the banks' fault? What if they use Linux to host their apps? No IE7 access?
And the new browser may not render existing pages well?
Oh ... yeah. That's a forward-thinking product I can get behind.
To clarify the above report about banking sites, a read of the bug report blog [blogs.msdn.com] reveals that the problem is being reported as 'web sites that check for an IE6 user-agent string', not that the app is 'built into the bank's application'.
Those of you who are saying bugs-shmugs should check out the blog. There are substantial issues all over the place.
P.S. The 'official' nomenclature for this release is NOT 'beta'. It's 'beta preview'. MS is releasing these versions BEFORE they issue a real 'beta'. Back where I come from, this phase of development is called 'alpha', but MS has never been known to use the normal way of referring to releases. (Remember IE1 or IE2? Of course you don't ... they started with IE3!) Looks better to joe shmoe public if the numbers/terms are more advanced, don'cha know ... real clever.
"it's beta, get over it"... agreed. But I am more aware of the conversion rates of users of the product and the overall "look&feel", because the IE7 will have a tremendous market share in 2 years from now.
what I do not like with that software is the default "dithering" of fonts, that makes my sites look fuzzy and I do not like the colors for the default "visited links"...
so far YaB (yet another browser)... the security isses will be solved and new will be discovered, but there a non-webmasters at the keyboards coding the most essential tool for the next few years of the web - for that I do expect a bit more... but they just do not ask me :-)
MS specifically states IE7 beta is for professionals. It is not for Joe Average who uses the web just for checking his yahoo! mail, reading the news and doing his private banking. That said, IE7BETA was released for *testing* purposes, so any risk/bug is an acceptable one given the conditions.
If it was for professionals only, why was it a public release? ZDNet and Cnet are all reporting many problems with CSS and not just crashing of programs. Bruno's site is starting to show the first CSS bugs and workarounds. Designers on other forums are reporting inability to get simple every day things working.
What I see so far is a glorious mess. I say glorious because I hope it fails and I hope it fails hard. Then the average Joe will see just how bad IE is and they will make the switch to modern browsers instead of hanging on to old, buggy IE. Still not working with the DOM standards since 1998.
|What I see so far is a glorious mess |
It looks like the blog is filled with around 60% technical/CSS issues, 30% interface/gloriousness issues and 10% 'luvin it' comments. Not too bad, really, for a 'beta 2 preview' release.
|What I see so far is a glorious mess |
Get over yourselves. Do you have any idea what software life cycles are? Have you ever built anything for the web/user in your life? If so, then you know that bugs are a part of the game. If not, then you sound off with comments like those.
Look at Google's history. Look at Norton/Symantec's history. Look at Sun's history. Look at *gasp!* Mozilla's history.
I challenge you to put out a program that has the reach of IE and make it "beta-but-it's-really-v3-or-preview-or-whatever-they-call-it-this-week" and have it meet your level of expectation's comparisons. Amusing.
|Look at Google's history. Look at Norton/Symantec's history. Look at Sun's history. Look at *gasp!* Mozilla's history. |
Amen brother! :)
Anybody who thinks a preview beta will be bug free has probably never written a line of publicly released code in their life.
Let's compare this to Firefox Betas, which are in my experience, as smooth as the full releases. (Not counting the nightly builds, which I don't use.) You just know you're "okay" with them. But Microsoft... even when IE7 Final is released, it is almost guaranteed to have bugs. The rendering engine is so old! They should ditch it and use Gecko, then almost everyone would be on the same platform. It would make developing a lot easier. Of course they won't because of integration with Windows, intranets, and other programs that rely on the MSHTML process. Still, I can dream.
|otherwise, howz it? worth trying? |
Yes, I'd say so. They're doing a pretty good job, in my fairly non technical opinion. For some reason, I can't get it to save and automatically input my passwords the way firefox does - maybe it isn't supposed to do that, but I guess I thought it would.
Other than that, I just have a few small things that I wish it could do. I'm not sure how I like the RSS feed section, but I haven't tried it out enough to complain yet.
I have always used Firefox betas and haven't had any serious issues except the occasional crash. The reason IE7 is such a problem is because it doesn't display the very basic, core issues correctly. That is, things from 1998 and CSS1 issues are wrong. Floats are wrong, etc. If it crashed occasionally or blipped once in a while, I would understand, but getting fundamental display items wrong is a forewarning that MS still doesn't know how to make IE work on the web! (Which we knew anyway)
How come IE cant get accessibility compliance right? Are they idiots or is it something more?
Dear mattglet ... I build web apps every day and have done so since the web existed ... and before that building 'net apps, so I fully understand the development cycle.
The IE7 reports are full of very basic issues that demonstrate MS's lack of understanding of what is important to their users and their inability to integrate lessons supposedly learned in the past with new products under development.
I fully appreciate the work that goes into a product of this scope, and in no way do I fault the grunts in the pressure cooker of the MS product development environment (having met and enjoyed lunch with many of them). The issues on display in any of the bug tracking forums are the result of a crappy information system that has time and time again led to releases of products that are fundamentally flawed. The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. Simple as that.
Frankly, the first public release should have been a stand-alone version. Get the stinking thing working without forcing your 'beta testers' to risk their entire system.
There was no reason to release this version to the public. All of these issues should have been considered part of the alpha stage, and MS should not have chosen to expose their customers to this product until the security issues were under control. They should be doing a lot more of their own testing. After all, nobody would know if it stunk, inhouse.
I guess it's cheaper to spin the headlines than to task your own workforce.
Ok ok, for real what I want to know is why all the sticking up for IE? IE has been a thorn in my side for 5+ years and yes there was a time when it was Netscape 4.1 that was the target of my wrath but it got better and let's face it... IE has not!
So let's quit talking about unfair reviews because it is still in beta or being unfair because people love to bash $MS$ the fact is -it is IE and it is going to suck! Plain and simple! You can say what you want but with the amount of time I spend everyday making stuff work in IE when it already works in everything else I can't say I am holding out a lot of hope.
What is it they say when they start breaking standards?
"Inbrace and extend"
Get ready to update a lot of code when surfers come to your site with their brand new IE.
Nothing with Active X plugins is going to be something I ever browse with. It is a browser for internet newbs plain and simple. With a feature list that reads like 5 Mozilla release ago... color me totally unimpressed.
| This 38 message thread spans 2 pages: 38 (  2 ) > > |