Moderator: Thanas
Ha, it'll just mine that instead of working together to fuck you over they'll be so busy fighting each other that the computer will slowly die with out you even knowing it.Slartibartfast wrote:If this means that the next release of Windows is completely devoid of any integrated browser whatsoever, and IE 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8 will be totally optional, then I'm all for it.
See this page for details of how to apply it to your web site. It's a pretty trivial fix, which just makes it even more annoying that Microsoft hasn't incorporated it into IE by default.phongn wrote:There is a way to force IE6 to properly render PNGs with 8-bit alpha which involves a bit of ActiveX trickery. Google Maps uses it, IIRC.Durandal wrote:From what I've heard, they've finally gotten around to implementing full support for 8-bit alpha blending for 24-bit PNGs. The fact that it's taken this long is utterly absurd. Internet Explorer 5.0 on Mac OS 9 could display such PNGs correctly, and it was released in 1998.
Kudos to him on his candidness, but I'll believe this stuff when I see it. Some of the fixes for IE would so incredibly trivial that there is literally no fucking excuse for not implementing them, like full PNG support and CSS positioning fixes. The developers of IE might like the idea of open standards, but management probably sees them as threats and could give two shits about IE's standards support.Uraniun235 wrote:[url=http://forums.somethingawful.co*/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1462206&perpage=40&pagenumber=1]MS employee comments on IE 7 release announcement[/url]
If anyone here has a Something Awful forums account (or, on the off chance that SH/SC is public these days), you can read some commentary by an MS employee on IE 7.
Some quotes from him...
I am a Security Support Engineer in our support organization. Part of my job is to review all upcoming MS software (so I have alphas, betas and in some cases early specs of all MS products and product changes) as my team does supportability reviews with an eye on how it affects the security landscape and how it solves customer problems. So we take a lot of customer feedback to the dev org and beat them about the head with it to enforce changes that customers want.Unfortunatly the security bugs have priority (and we have alot of them as you are all well aware). So yes the W3C compliance is on the list of fixes but its priority is lower than fixing our security problems.All I can say is I'm personally ashamed and sorry for our poor compliance and we beat devs about the head on it all the time. All we can do is glower at them and make them work at it so it will improve.
Its a pathetic response but....we're working on it.You heard me, me and all my ms buddies want tabs and so do a ton of customers.Yes, IMO (and this is my personal opionion, not an official MS opinion) its a stinking, festering pile. It has way too much old code that has carried over from the "old days" that needs to die.Why is an entire new version of IE required to fix these bugs and security problems? Is the code of IE6 that mangled with holes whereby it requires an entire rehaul?Yes the team was kind of hacked apart, but it had more to do with litigation.Microsoft has a lot of great talent, and they produce some great products. Unfortunately, IE is not one of them anymore, especially compared to its recent competitors. I assume this is because Microsoft hasn't allocated sufficient resources to IE development for years.
I believe the Moox builds let you do that, but they can be buggy sometimes. Try it out.sketerpot wrote:Can you do that with any later Firefox versions? At school I can't install programs (because the damn school changed the fucking administrator passwords without telling me the new ones!) so I'm stuck using a folder-contained old Firebird 0.7. It still kicks IE's ass, but it would be nice to be able to upgrade.Praxis wrote:IIRC FireFox 0.8 could be downloaded and unzipped and run without ever actually running an installer...Beowulf wrote:I use IE at work because: I'm not supposed to install any programs.
