| 1:20 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Here is macromedia's press release about it:
| 1:32 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
doh! I just came back to post that - thanks for being faster : )
| 4:56 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
| 4:57 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
oh no! here we go - thats actually the worst news i've had all week
| 5:13 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Oh dear, that's terrible. Do you know if this new version of IE will be version 7.0, and also, will there be any changes to the rendering engine?
| 5:26 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The thing I'm trying to pin down is whether this new 2004 version of the Interent Explorer Browser will be automatically installed for XP users -- if so, there's a lot of Flash out there that will suddenly stop working. Right now, that's how I read the news.
|...will there be any changes to the rendering engine? |
Microsoft would make this bitter pill a lot easier to swallow if they would make some other changes, too - especially a CSS engine upgrade, such as support for min-width and max-width and other sins of omission and comission.
I having been dreading the long wait for Longhorn (2006?) to see any improvement in IE. If MS would fix up the nastiest problems with IE right now, that would make me a much happier developer.
I missed that piece -- where are they mentioned? I didn't know gif animation used ActiveX controls.
[edited by: tedster at 5:30 pm (utc) on Oct. 22, 2003]
| 5:30 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
It will be a rough deal having Flash and other plugins break like this. It will definitely scare off people from using rich content. The rework will be less immediate if it doesn't ship with the OS, but I bet that it will.
I agree Tedster that they need to upgrade some issues with IE. Tabbed browsing, CSS, and some of the other neat features from the other competitors would help IE.
| 5:40 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Just to sort out some confusion.
No, this is not IE 7. It is still the same IE 6, except that it no longer uses "automatic" plugins.
And yes, all copies of XP will be recalled. If you buy XP in the future it will come bundled with the new version of IE 6.
For workarounds, consult this page:
| 5:41 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
But, see, making all those optimistic changes would require a type of behavior we haven't seen from Microsoft before-- admitting fault, taking an opportunity to fix something, and going the extra mile to make sure it's done right.
I'm not saying they won't. I'm just not betting they will.
| 5:43 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
This whole embed topic brings another question: Lots of sites will have to be updated. Many of those will be corporate sites who have been done by web agencies. So the question is who will pay for that?
I don't think either the site owners or the web agencies are willing to pay respectively do the work for free. But OTOH, I don't think there is any way to make M$ responsible and have them pay.
| 5:44 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Oh, I forgot to mention... The exact name of this IE version is "IE 6 SP1b". So it's not a new version, it's not even a service pack.
| 5:49 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Previous threads on this:
| 5:55 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I get the feeling that M$ would have saved lots of people lots of work and worries had they just paid Eolas for their patent.
| 5:57 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
| 6:00 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Except to recommend that they change browsers. |
The reason that this is being implemented affects all browser makers, not just IE/M$. So a change isn't the answer... (from what I understand!)
| 6:26 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|especially a CSS engine upgrade, such as support for min-width and max-width and other sins of omission and comission. |
If they added min-width and max-width life would be so much easier. Not holding my breath.
| 6:54 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
This is just further proof that new isn't always better.
PS I'm holding onto my Windows 2000 disc for dear life!
| 7:33 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Why does it seem that every company or organization out there is trying feverishly uninvent everything that's become a standard?
I rarely use flash of animated gifs when developing a site, but hardly see why this move would be worth the effort.
I feel for those who depend on flash advertising for revenue.
Now we'll just have to wait and see what flash development program MS will roll-out to compete with Macromedia. :)
Whatever it is, I bet it'll load in their browsers with no warnings. :P
| 7:47 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Why does it seem that every company or organization out there is trying feverishly uninvent everything that's become a standard? |
Because Michael Doyle (Eolas) wants a big bag of money.
| 7:48 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Whatever it is, I bet it'll load in their browsers with no warnings. |
Well, since embedded windows media produces the warning, I doubt it. Although, you were probably half joking.
Why don't we all pick up a pen and write to this government of ours about how silly and unintelligent they are.
| 7:52 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
> affects all browser makers
It's a US patent, and I doubt it was filed in Norway. Opera is safe :)
| 8:13 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Just in case anyone's having trouble following the plot here, this all stems from an August jury decision in the Eolas patent lawsuit against Microsoft. It's not something that Redmond dreamed up all on their own just to bother the public or sharpen their competitive edge.
|The solution developed by Microsoft has two main parts: |
First, Microsoft will make minor changes to Internet Explorer's handling of some Web pages that use ActiveX® Controls, such as Macromedia Flash, Apple QuickTime, RealNetworks RealOne, Adobe Acrobat Reader, Sun Java Virtual Machine and Microsoft Windows Media® Player...
Second, Microsoft and other industry partners are working to provide documentation for Web developers that describe how to author Web pages so the dialog box would not be necessary.
Press Release [microsoft.com]
I note that animated gif's (and png's) are not mentioned - I think we may be safe there.
| 8:27 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|It's not something that Redmond dreamed up all on their own just to bother the public... |
This time at least ;)
| 8:32 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
"I get the feeling that M$ would have saved lots of people lots of work and worries had they just paid Eolas for their patent."
To date, Eolas is not selling licenses.
| 8:41 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|I get the feeling that M$ would have saved lots of people lots of work and worries had they just paid Eolas for their patent. |
IIRC - micro$erf is appealing the decision. but in the mean time, they have a patent they've been found guilty of violating. and Eolas is already getting around $526 million. now micro$erf should pay more for a license to something that they feel they've written their own code to do? send your hate mail to Eolas, not micro$erf. i've read they're already getting a lot of it ...
| 9:18 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
The legal battle is far from being over. It may be premature to change any pages yet. Eolas considers the work around as still infringing on their patent. They filed a motion to permanently enjoin Microsoft from distributing their browser unless they get a license or remove it completely. Who knows which way the courts will decide.
This lawsuit was filed back in 1999. There are expectations Eolas may go after the rest of the gorillas next including Opera: [news.com.com...] . Yes, this sucks for a lot of people, but it wasn't right for the big gorillas to just take a little guy's patent and make billions off of it. I know some here are mad but if you were put in the same position as him, wouldn't you do the same thing? I would.
| 9:33 pm on Oct 22, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|but it wasn't right for the big gorillas to just take a little guy's patent and make billions off of it |
I agree - and the guy at Eolas should pay up to all the prior art holders before him - one prior art instance was thrown out at the last case by a capricious judge - others have come to the surface in the meantime - his patent is false...
| 12:39 am on Oct 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Ah ... home of the brave, land of the litigious ...
| 2:19 am on Oct 23, 2003 (gmt 0)|
No, it is not. Doyle applied for a patent. Just like every one else who does, his submission went through a lengthy review process. It was filed in Oct 1994 and granted in Nov 1998. During this four year period, anyone could have raised objections to the claim. The large companies here monitor patent submissions like a hawk to protect their own. Microsoft or any of them had ample opportunity to derail it back then. All the people who are trashing out Doyle right now also had the same opportunity to do so as well.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted Doyle the patent, and he has the right to enforce it. In early Feb 1999, less than three months after it was final, Eolas filed this lawsuit. It's not his fault everyone in the world got very use to this technology while his case went slowly thru the court system for 4.5 years. It's not his fault that Microsoft refuses to get a license but instead wants to punish everyone with these stupid alert boxes. It's not his fault that others who may have done prior work didn't dispute his claim. Right or wrong, he got the patent legimately thru the regular process which is probably why the judge did not allow such arguments to be heard. He doesn't owe prior art holders a dime.
| This 52 message thread spans 2 pages: 52 (  2 ) > > |