Comments on: Next Explorer to fail Acid test

Microsoft says IE 7 won't pass the standards exam; rivals Opera and Apple say they'll meet criteria set by World Wide Web Consortium.

[Earl Benser]

Once more.....

... the 1800 pound gorilla assumes that rules are for other
people. Web standards are just a 'wish list' for MS? And
compliance with those standards is not a priority item with MS?

Says a lot, doesn't it? "Damn the specifications, full speed ahead"
continues to be MS's battle cry.

Maybe if this latest bit of MS fog is treated as a positive event,
actual code improvement might eventiually show up.

Meanwhile, I will put IE 7 on my wish list with some miniscule
priority, like maybe zero? After all, I already have FireFox, Opera,
Camino, and Safari. So there just isn't much room left for IE 7,
even if Windows Uodate requires it.

Realy Safari on windows???????!

"""Meanwhile, I will put IE 7 on my wish list with some miniscule
priority, like maybe zero? After all, I already have FireFox, Opera,
Camino, and Safari. So there just isn't much room left for IE 7,
even if Windows Uodate requires it."""

Realy Safari on windows???? Where can I get it???

[Andrew J Glina]

On the other hand

"Damn the open source community, full speed ahead" was the cry of Apple when making Safari pass that test. Apple seem to be the only group who see this test as the Number 1 priority. I agree that it is important to achieve compliance to standards, but not when it means supporting page formatting that is made deliberatly complicated to prove a point.

[201293546946733175101343322673]

You Are Weird...

Why do you have to install so many browsers? :)

[Earl Benser]

Once more.....

... the 1800 pound gorilla assumes that rules are for other
people. Web standards are just a 'wish list' for MS? And
compliance with those standards is not a priority item with MS?

Says a lot, doesn't it? "Damn the specifications, full speed ahead"
continues to be MS's battle cry.

Maybe if this latest bit of MS fog is treated as a positive event,
actual code improvement might eventiually show up.

Meanwhile, I will put IE 7 on my wish list with some miniscule
priority, like maybe zero? After all, I already have FireFox, Opera,
Camino, and Safari. So there just isn't much room left for IE 7,
even if Windows Uodate requires it.

Realy Safari on windows???????!

"""Meanwhile, I will put IE 7 on my wish list with some miniscule
priority, like maybe zero? After all, I already have FireFox, Opera,
Camino, and Safari. So there just isn't much room left for IE 7,
even if Windows Uodate requires it."""

Realy Safari on windows???? Where can I get it???

[Andrew J Glina]

On the other hand

"Damn the open source community, full speed ahead" was the cry of Apple when making Safari pass that test. Apple seem to be the only group who see this test as the Number 1 priority. I agree that it is important to achieve compliance to standards, but not when it means supporting page formatting that is made deliberatly complicated to prove a point.

[201293546946733175101343322673]

You Are Weird...

Why do you have to install so many browsers? :)

[R. U. Sirius]

What incentive do they have?

What's the penetration for IE in the browser market? 90%? So what's the incentive to do anything at all? This behavior will not stop until a large percentage of the market weans itself off of Microsoft products.

Do it or don't complain.

I switched

I used to own MS stock and defend them at every turn. But it has become apparent to me that MS is no longer helping high-tech innovate and expand. So I dumped 'em. Now I'm a Linux user.

[ramonck]

Not really...

That would be the most usual case. But Microsoft is maintaining their "wrong standards" and they are not changing it like they said, it's a company policy.

Unless Bill says ok we are losing market let's do what the other guys are doing, they are not going to do anything about it.

It's not a priority to meet the w3c standards, it's just a complement if it can be done without much work. On IE7 I only saw the tabs feature and that was it, what else do you expect from a company that has always been about the new look and not the new security feature.

[R. U. Sirius]

What incentive do they have?

What's the penetration for IE in the browser market? 90%? So what's the incentive to do anything at all? This behavior will not stop until a large percentage of the market weans itself off of Microsoft products.

Do it or don't complain.

I switched

I used to own MS stock and defend them at every turn. But it has become apparent to me that MS is no longer helping high-tech innovate and expand. So I dumped 'em. Now I'm a Linux user.

[ramonck]

Not really...

That would be the most usual case. But Microsoft is maintaining their "wrong standards" and they are not changing it like they said, it's a company policy.

Unless Bill says ok we are losing market let's do what the other guys are doing, they are not going to do anything about it.

It's not a priority to meet the w3c standards, it's just a complement if it can be done without much work. On IE7 I only saw the tabs feature and that was it, what else do you expect from a company that has always been about the new look and not the new security feature.

[David Arbogast]

Nobody is Compliant

Before the anti-MS crowd sounds off again, lets be perfectly clear about this statement:

<<Lie said Opera was "very close" to passing Acid2. Apple Computer has already said that its Safari browser passes the test in preliminary builds. The Mozilla Foundation said it was committed to "full support" of Acid2 in its Firefox browser but did not say when it expected to pass the test.>>

In other words, neither the new Safari, Mozilla, or FireFox have passed this test either. It remains to be see which browsers are fully compliant once they are released in their final versions. Furthermore, it was not stated *which* tests IE7 will not pass. Simply stated, *none* of these new browsers are compliant as of today.

[198775425444042216790779840523]

really?

"Apple Computer has already said that its Safari browser passes the
test in preliminary builds."
Which part of that sentence says it didn't pass the test?
So... it is possible after all.
The difference is that most if not all browsers other than IE actually
make a fair attempt at meeting standards. For MS standards is an
afterthought.... and when someone else does not adopt their
format... the moan about it to no end.

[samkass]

True...

It's true that no officially released browser passes these tests. All indications are, however, that by the time IE7 actually ships that will no longer be true and that all the competing browsers WILL pass them, as they all have "in the lab" versions that do.

Considering the lag between IE releases and the apparent low priority Microsoft gives it now that there is little strategic threat from a "Netscape", I think the concern is that there won't be an IE 7.5 that meets current standards for years, let alone some of the innovations others will come up with in the meantime.

CSS1

Just to use as an example. CSS1 standardized in 1996. Safari,
Camino, Netscape, Opera, Firefox, etc, etc... all are 95+%
compliant. How about IE?

Well, first you have to pick which one, because IE 5, IE 5.5, IE 6
and IE 5.2 on the Mac all have their own set of unique bugs and
non-compliances. So... As a web designer, whenever I design
with CSS, I have to go back and look at the page in IE 5 and fix
those bugs, then IE 5.5 and fix those bugs, etc. etc. All done
with hacks to the standard code (it passes all compliance checks
before the hacks). Now, not only will I have to bugfix for those,
but also for IE 7.

Time spent coding webpage: 1 hour. Time spent hacking the CSS
to fully support IE (with some exceptions - like PNG
transparency which there simply isn't any way to get to work in
IE): 1-4 hours depending on how problematic the bug is.

I shouldn't have to spend ANY time to get the page to look
correct in ANY version of IE. I'm really looking forward to
spending MORE time hacking CSS for another crappy version of
IE.

True, about 90% of the browser market is IE (and a lot of the
user market is compter illiterates). But that doesn't mean we
can't spread the word! When designing professionally I have no
choice but to hack the CSS for IE but I refuse to support IE on
any of my personal sites and have full pages devoted to why you
should be using ANYTHING other than IE. CSS1 is just the tip of
the iceberg. Help spread the word, if it's not professional, don't
support IE. There's even a hack to show text if and only if the
user is browsing with IE. Good for a "Why does this page look all
messed up? Because you're using a broken browser." message.

I was kind of hoping we could be able to put a "upgrade to the
latest version of Internet Explorer for best viewing" message and
help the IE users start weeding out the broken IEs, but it's
looking like that will never happen.

And people wonder why there are M$ bashers out there. Work
professionally in an area where you are constantly banging your
head against the M$ wall for a while and you'll be saying how
much they suck too.

When is "compliant" not compliant? When MS stockholders opine.

Before the "We Love Bill Gates" crowd sounds off again, lets be perfectly clear about this statement:

<<Lie said Opera was "very close" to passing Acid2. Apple Computer has already said that its Safari browser passes the test in preliminary builds. The Mozilla Foundation said it was committed to "full support" of Acid2 in its Firefox browser but did not say when it expected to pass the test.>>

In other words, the new versions of Safari, Opera, and FireFox will have passed this test and be fully compliant. It is obvious which browsers are fully compliant once they are released in their final versions and which are not. Furthermore, it was not stated *which* tests IE7 will not pass. Simply stated, all of these browsers next versions are compliant while IE 7 IS NOT AND WILL NOT be.

[David Arbogast]

Nobody is Compliant

Before the anti-MS crowd sounds off again, lets be perfectly clear about this statement:

<<Lie said Opera was "very close" to passing Acid2. Apple Computer has already said that its Safari browser passes the test in preliminary builds. The Mozilla Foundation said it was committed to "full support" of Acid2 in its Firefox browser but did not say when it expected to pass the test.>>

In other words, neither the new Safari, Mozilla, or FireFox have passed this test either. It remains to be see which browsers are fully compliant once they are released in their final versions. Furthermore, it was not stated *which* tests IE7 will not pass. Simply stated, *none* of these new browsers are compliant as of today.

[198775425444042216790779840523]

really?

"Apple Computer has already said that its Safari browser passes the
test in preliminary builds."
Which part of that sentence says it didn't pass the test?
So... it is possible after all.
The difference is that most if not all browsers other than IE actually
make a fair attempt at meeting standards. For MS standards is an
afterthought.... and when someone else does not adopt their
format... the moan about it to no end.

[samkass]

True...

It's true that no officially released browser passes these tests. All indications are, however, that by the time IE7 actually ships that will no longer be true and that all the competing browsers WILL pass them, as they all have "in the lab" versions that do.

Considering the lag between IE releases and the apparent low priority Microsoft gives it now that there is little strategic threat from a "Netscape", I think the concern is that there won't be an IE 7.5 that meets current standards for years, let alone some of the innovations others will come up with in the meantime.

CSS1

Just to use as an example. CSS1 standardized in 1996. Safari,
Camino, Netscape, Opera, Firefox, etc, etc... all are 95+%
compliant. How about IE?

Well, first you have to pick which one, because IE 5, IE 5.5, IE 6
and IE 5.2 on the Mac all have their own set of unique bugs and
non-compliances. So... As a web designer, whenever I design
with CSS, I have to go back and look at the page in IE 5 and fix
those bugs, then IE 5.5 and fix those bugs, etc. etc. All done
with hacks to the standard code (it passes all compliance checks
before the hacks). Now, not only will I have to bugfix for those,
but also for IE 7.

Time spent coding webpage: 1 hour. Time spent hacking the CSS
to fully support IE (with some exceptions - like PNG
transparency which there simply isn't any way to get to work in
IE): 1-4 hours depending on how problematic the bug is.

I shouldn't have to spend ANY time to get the page to look
correct in ANY version of IE. I'm really looking forward to
spending MORE time hacking CSS for another crappy version of
IE.

True, about 90% of the browser market is IE (and a lot of the
user market is compter illiterates). But that doesn't mean we
can't spread the word! When designing professionally I have no
choice but to hack the CSS for IE but I refuse to support IE on
any of my personal sites and have full pages devoted to why you
should be using ANYTHING other than IE. CSS1 is just the tip of
the iceberg. Help spread the word, if it's not professional, don't
support IE. There's even a hack to show text if and only if the
user is browsing with IE. Good for a "Why does this page look all
messed up? Because you're using a broken browser." message.

I was kind of hoping we could be able to put a "upgrade to the
latest version of Internet Explorer for best viewing" message and
help the IE users start weeding out the broken IEs, but it's
looking like that will never happen.

And people wonder why there are M$ bashers out there. Work
professionally in an area where you are constantly banging your
head against the M$ wall for a while and you'll be saying how
much they suck too.

When is "compliant" not compliant? When MS stockholders opine.

Before the "We Love Bill Gates" crowd sounds off again, lets be perfectly clear about this statement:

<<Lie said Opera was "very close" to passing Acid2. Apple Computer has already said that its Safari browser passes the test in preliminary builds. The Mozilla Foundation said it was committed to "full support" of Acid2 in its Firefox browser but did not say when it expected to pass the test.>>

In other words, the new versions of Safari, Opera, and FireFox will have passed this test and be fully compliant. It is obvious which browsers are fully compliant once they are released in their final versions and which are not. Furthermore, it was not stated *which* tests IE7 will not pass. Simply stated, all of these browsers next versions are compliant while IE 7 IS NOT AND WILL NOT be.

What's CNET got against MS?

Are you kidding me? More drivel from the anti MS CNET news staff. Are you guys seriously trying to argue that because Apple and Opera are following the standards that people would actually use their browsers? No one really cares...It seems like once a week we get one of these articles out of you folks. "MS sucks and everyone else makes way better stuff" ... How about a little realism and less of this Microsoft is the long arm of satan stuff...

Hehe

Mebbe cause Microsoft makes broken products? This is tech news.
Web designers like myself have been waiting for "the new Internet
Explorer behaves like a browser should!". Unfortunately, we got the
opposite. Personally, I would LOVE to see an "Internet Explorer at
least mostly web standard compliant" headline.

P.S. If you're so hardcore IE, you need to grab this:
http://www.lavasoftusa.com/software/adaware/

I do

"No one really cares"

Sorry, you're wrong. I care and I'll bet many others do as well.

[Gayle Edwards]

What does anyone have against Microsoft..? - THE FACTS...

Another question...

Why is it that when ANYONE points out what Microsoft IS DOING, ...HAS DONE, ...or has flatly-stated that they [Microsoft] INTEND TO DO, such verifiably-honest people (who are merely pointing out these EASILY-CONFIRMABLE FACTS) are so-frequently called "...bashers"..?

Maybe a better question would be to ask yourself WHY ANYONE would DEFEND a REPEATEDLY-CONVICTED "...illegal-monopoly" which has been found to have "...stolen", "...manipulated", and "...lied", ...time, ...after time, ...after time?

You really should answer THAT question, because another FACT, is that most people who actually work in the industry for any length of time (such as myself, with over twenty-years in the field) quickly are FORCED to realize just how arrogant, dishonest, and incompetent Microsoft truly is.

But then, I am probably just another one of the, PRACTICALLY-COUNTLESS, numbers of "Microsoft-bashers" who, just so happens, CAN actually back-up every NEGATIVE thing said about the company, and its products, ...with FACTS.

[nmcphers]

Did you sleep trough Vista week?

There were about 2 stories a day on Windows Vista last week. MS couldn't ask for any more promotion. Were you also there complaining that they were anti-microsoft stories?

[iKenny]

A question of bias

If you take a look at CNET's review site, it clearly states
"unbiased reviews," and that's the goal of any news site as well.
CNET reports on MS a lot because quite frankly they dwarf any
other technology company. You could accuse CNET of being
Apple bashers too because they rarely report on upcoming
builds of OS X (unlike Vista).

It just so happens that in this instance, I would agree that IE's
situation is lamentable, considering that all the other major
browsers either already pass the test or will very soon. CNET is
expressing the fact that MS has son work to do in this field.

Actually this is a very important story

... to those of us that develop web sites for a living. We like the standards that Microsoft HELPED CREATE and would really like to be able to build ONE version of a web page once instead of having to build one for every rendering engine out there! When building sites and checking them in Firefox, at least you can see that 99.9% of the time, it gets it right. With the Mozilla browsers, you get the feeling that at least they're TRYING to be standards compliant, whereas with Internet Explorer, you get the feeling that they just don't care. This is a big let-down to those of us that were hoping that IE 7 would represent a change of heart at Microsoft.

[201293546946733175101343322673]

No No No, PCWorld is Actually More Anti-MS

Just go to your local bookstore and flip through the magazine, then you will know what I mean. Oh, by the way, don't buy or subscribe that crappy magazine, it is not worth your money :)

[Scott W]

it's true

but it's true... MS ARE evil, their products DO suck and we SHOULD switch to alternatives :p

IE would be ok but...

...the ONLY times I used to get Blue Screens of Death was immediately after installing the latest IE upgrade (usually involuntarily when I installed TurboTax).

Then when I uninstall the IE upgrade, it removes more than it had installed, causing problems from "file not found" on boot, or an entirely unbootable machine.

I no longer have these problems, because my Macs don't do that, and my windoze machines remain for when I absolutely have to get to some a**hole's web site.

What's CNET got against MS?

Are you kidding me? More drivel from the anti MS CNET news staff. Are you guys seriously trying to argue that because Apple and Opera are following the standards that people would actually use their browsers? No one really cares...It seems like once a week we get one of these articles out of you folks. "MS sucks and everyone else makes way better stuff" ... How about a little realism and less of this Microsoft is the long arm of satan stuff...

Hehe

Mebbe cause Microsoft makes broken products? This is tech news.
Web designers like myself have been waiting for "the new Internet
Explorer behaves like a browser should!". Unfortunately, we got the
opposite. Personally, I would LOVE to see an "Internet Explorer at
least mostly web standard compliant" headline.

P.S. If you're so hardcore IE, you need to grab this:
http://www.lavasoftusa.com/software/adaware/

I do

"No one really cares"

Sorry, you're wrong. I care and I'll bet many others do as well.

[Gayle Edwards]

What does anyone have against Microsoft..? - THE FACTS...

Another question...

Why is it that when ANYONE points out what Microsoft IS DOING, ...HAS DONE, ...or has flatly-stated that they [Microsoft] INTEND TO DO, such verifiably-honest people (who are merely pointing out these EASILY-CONFIRMABLE FACTS) are so-frequently called "...bashers"..?

Maybe a better question would be to ask yourself WHY ANYONE would DEFEND a REPEATEDLY-CONVICTED "...illegal-monopoly" which has been found to have "...stolen", "...manipulated", and "...lied", ...time, ...after time, ...after time?

You really should answer THAT question, because another FACT, is that most people who actually work in the industry for any length of time (such as myself, with over twenty-years in the field) quickly are FORCED to realize just how arrogant, dishonest, and incompetent Microsoft truly is.

But then, I am probably just another one of the, PRACTICALLY-COUNTLESS, numbers of "Microsoft-bashers" who, just so happens, CAN actually back-up every NEGATIVE thing said about the company, and its products, ...with FACTS.

[nmcphers]

Did you sleep trough Vista week?

There were about 2 stories a day on Windows Vista last week. MS couldn't ask for any more promotion. Were you also there complaining that they were anti-microsoft stories?

[iKenny]

A question of bias

If you take a look at CNET's review site, it clearly states
"unbiased reviews," and that's the goal of any news site as well.
CNET reports on MS a lot because quite frankly they dwarf any
other technology company. You could accuse CNET of being
Apple bashers too because they rarely report on upcoming
builds of OS X (unlike Vista).

It just so happens that in this instance, I would agree that IE's
situation is lamentable, considering that all the other major
browsers either already pass the test or will very soon. CNET is
expressing the fact that MS has son work to do in this field.

Actually this is a very important story

... to those of us that develop web sites for a living. We like the standards that Microsoft HELPED CREATE and would really like to be able to build ONE version of a web page once instead of having to build one for every rendering engine out there! When building sites and checking them in Firefox, at least you can see that 99.9% of the time, it gets it right. With the Mozilla browsers, you get the feeling that at least they're TRYING to be standards compliant, whereas with Internet Explorer, you get the feeling that they just don't care. This is a big let-down to those of us that were hoping that IE 7 would represent a change of heart at Microsoft.

[201293546946733175101343322673]

No No No, PCWorld is Actually More Anti-MS

Just go to your local bookstore and flip through the magazine, then you will know what I mean. Oh, by the way, don't buy or subscribe that crappy magazine, it is not worth your money :)

[Scott W]

it's true

but it's true... MS ARE evil, their products DO suck and we SHOULD switch to alternatives :p

IE would be ok but...

...the ONLY times I used to get Blue Screens of Death was immediately after installing the latest IE upgrade (usually involuntarily when I installed TurboTax).

Then when I uninstall the IE upgrade, it removes more than it had installed, causing problems from "file not found" on boot, or an entirely unbootable machine.

I no longer have these problems, because my Macs don't do that, and my windoze machines remain for when I absolutely have to get to some a**hole's web site.

[PCCRomeo]

IE 7? More like IE 6.1

Ya know what Microsoft? Screw it. I'll not even bother with IE 7 or Vista...

You will not question my 'thoritee!

In my best Cartman voice, with Bill Gates glasses for effect. :-)

[201293546946733175101343322673]

You Know What Eric?

We don't care what you think either, since you don't even have the brain :)

[PCCRomeo]

IE 7? More like IE 6.1

Ya know what Microsoft? Screw it. I'll not even bother with IE 7 or Vista...

You will not question my 'thoritee!

In my best Cartman voice, with Bill Gates glasses for effect. :-)

[201293546946733175101343322673]

You Know What Eric?

We don't care what you think either, since you don't even have the brain :)

[Jeff Putz]

acid2 is NOT standards

Did anyone who posted even read the story? The test they won't pass goes beyond standards and into an area where the authors think it would be a good idea. Are the authors now better qualified to decide what standards are than the W3C?

Can anyone ever make an intelligent comment about Microsoft without falling into the cliche hater category?

No, the acid2 test is not standards

It's here: http://www.webstandards.org/act/acid2/ if anyone
wants to test it out (Safari fails miserably). The acid2 test
features a ton of stuff that isn't widely supported yet. The acid2
test is the future of standards. Many designers don't use a lot of
CSS2 or CSS3 because the support isn't there completely in most
browsers (although they're obviously making an effort to
incorporate them as more and more are supported with each
release). CSS1 support however, is 99% complete in all browsers
save IE.

Who cares? Web designers and the internet community do.
Creating standards that are widely supported allow us to create
better sites. Pure and simple. When we have to consider that this
feature or that isn't supported by IE, ie 90% of the browser
population, and thus we won't implement it, it hurts everyone.
Not just the IE users.

[jbo5112]

Intelligent Comments about Microsoft that Aren't Cliche

Everything about the way Microsoft engineers software is bad. ISO C/C++ and Microsoft Windows programing are mutually exclusive (note: command line programs can be ISO C/C++). I've never seen anything so poorly designed as Microsoft's .NET and COM (note: those are the only two there are from Microsoft) programming models. Windows does not run programs compiled with Visual Studio 2005 without installing extra software. I'm not surprised how many bugs Microsoft has published, but how much actually manages to work under such horrid design issues. There is hardly a standard that Microsoft has not mangled enough to try to force you to buy the latest version of their product. Aside from Bill's donations to charity, Microsoft is the epitome of capitalism's dark side.

Ubuntu, Red Hat, Mac, Firefox and OpenOffice are creeping in on Microsoft's territory. Microsoft can't survive for long selling $100-$600 software licenses to go on $100-$1000 of computer hardware in the face of competition that gives their product away. I'm aware that Mac software isn't free, but it's bundled with nicer hardware.

By the time of your post, there were builds of Safari, iCab, and Konqueror that passed the Acid2 test, and iCab even had a public build. Microsoft has yet to release anything that passes, and IE7 is still less compliant than the outdated Firefox 1.5.

Not so intelligent comment about Microsoft:
Internet Explorer 6/7 are good products; it's just that the test is unfair in violating the standards. (I will agree that the test is unfair to violate the standards, but there is still plenty of compliant CSS/HTML that will break down on any version of IE)

[Jeff Putz]

acid2 is NOT standards

Did anyone who posted even read the story? The test they won't pass goes beyond standards and into an area where the authors think it would be a good idea. Are the authors now better qualified to decide what standards are than the W3C?

Can anyone ever make an intelligent comment about Microsoft without falling into the cliche hater category?

No, the acid2 test is not standards

It's here: http://www.webstandards.org/act/acid2/ if anyone
wants to test it out (Safari fails miserably). The acid2 test
features a ton of stuff that isn't widely supported yet. The acid2
test is the future of standards. Many designers don't use a lot of
CSS2 or CSS3 because the support isn't there completely in most
browsers (although they're obviously making an effort to
incorporate them as more and more are supported with each
release). CSS1 support however, is 99% complete in all browsers
save IE.

Who cares? Web designers and the internet community do.
Creating standards that are widely supported allow us to create
better sites. Pure and simple. When we have to consider that this
feature or that isn't supported by IE, ie 90% of the browser
population, and thus we won't implement it, it hurts everyone.
Not just the IE users.

[jbo5112]

Intelligent Comments about Microsoft that Aren't Cliche

Everything about the way Microsoft engineers software is bad. ISO C/C++ and Microsoft Windows programing are mutually exclusive (note: command line programs can be ISO C/C++). I've never seen anything so poorly designed as Microsoft's .NET and COM (note: those are the only two there are from Microsoft) programming models. Windows does not run programs compiled with Visual Studio 2005 without installing extra software. I'm not surprised how many bugs Microsoft has published, but how much actually manages to work under such horrid design issues. There is hardly a standard that Microsoft has not mangled enough to try to force you to buy the latest version of their product. Aside from Bill's donations to charity, Microsoft is the epitome of capitalism's dark side.

Ubuntu, Red Hat, Mac, Firefox and OpenOffice are creeping in on Microsoft's territory. Microsoft can't survive for long selling $100-$600 software licenses to go on $100-$1000 of computer hardware in the face of competition that gives their product away. I'm aware that Mac software isn't free, but it's bundled with nicer hardware.

By the time of your post, there were builds of Safari, iCab, and Konqueror that passed the Acid2 test, and iCab even had a public build. Microsoft has yet to release anything that passes, and IE7 is still less compliant than the outdated Firefox 1.5.

Not so intelligent comment about Microsoft:
Internet Explorer 6/7 are good products; it's just that the test is unfair in violating the standards. (I will agree that the test is unfair to violate the standards, but there is still plenty of compliant CSS/HTML that will break down on any version of IE)

[System Tyrant]

I'll have a copy of IE 7...

Firefox, Opera, and what ever other browser I can get my hands on.

I don't paticularly feel the need to bash Microsoft over IE 7 since they stated their point better than I could. However I agree with another poster about companies not following standards better. It really does hurt everybody. It cost more money to develope websites that work in the different browsers. It lowers the potential for better websites.

Just because the W3C creates "recomendations" doesn't mean anybody has to use or follow them. We could all just standardize on IE and every browser could use them, but look how long it takes Microsoft to update IE with anything new and worthwhile. They can't even keep the format the same form program to program. This is why following a motivated group like the W3C is a much better idea.

Regardless I figure that IE will probably never fully support W3C standards or anybody elses for that matter, but I do think we will always see browsers that do. They may never knock Microsoft and IE off the top, but life will go on.

[System Tyrant]

I'll have a copy of IE 7...

Firefox, Opera, and what ever other browser I can get my hands on.

I don't paticularly feel the need to bash Microsoft over IE 7 since they stated their point better than I could. However I agree with another poster about companies not following standards better. It really does hurt everybody. It cost more money to develope websites that work in the different browsers. It lowers the potential for better websites.

Just because the W3C creates "recomendations" doesn't mean anybody has to use or follow them. We could all just standardize on IE and every browser could use them, but look how long it takes Microsoft to update IE with anything new and worthwhile. They can't even keep the format the same form program to program. This is why following a motivated group like the W3C is a much better idea.

Regardless I figure that IE will probably never fully support W3C standards or anybody elses for that matter, but I do think we will always see browsers that do. They may never knock Microsoft and IE off the top, but life will go on.

[Myron.S]

Who cares!?

Wow! All this technobabble and debate. Is everyone forgetting about dear old Vera of 86 years of age, or Mark do don't know a thing about it all and A. N. Other who likes the simple things of life?

Yes, a balance needs to be struck, but remember that many people just want it simple and want it to work.

For instnace, here is me. I'm a systems administrator and in many cases I hate it when I got zillions of scripts, Java applets and ActiveX stuff popping about all over the place.

I only visit CNET news because I can view and perticipate without letting even one script or applet run! Visiting a site only to have to download this and that and the next-door-neighbours-wife (hmmmm... Maybe not the latter) just puts me off a web site all together.

Put it another way. I don't like http://www.odeon.co.uk/Odeon/home.html but I do like http://www.odeon.co.uk/pls/Odeon/Odeon_text.region_list

I am no way disabled, but navigating through the latter (text version) is a far more pleasent and less stressful experience.

That's my own personal opinion. If you don't like it tough! At the end of the day you can make the most flashy web site about, but if the audience don't like it then you've wasted all that time and effort.

Get the jist?

Some of this *is* about making things easier. . .

Do you really believe the only benefit to making browsers more standards compliant is to make web sites more flashy and add additional features?

Wow. What an poorly thought out end user point of view. Never thought about how it might make life easier for the developer, did you? That can benefit the user in a lot of unseen ways, not just by "better features", but maybe by more content and less errors as well. There are a lot of indirect benefits you're ruling out by just saying "I don't like fancy junk, so who cares?"

I agree that a lot of web pages have too much junk on them, but to simply write off better standards support as unimportant just because some designers will use it to add junk seems extreme to me.

[Myron.S]

Who cares!?

Wow! All this technobabble and debate. Is everyone forgetting about dear old Vera of 86 years of age, or Mark do don't know a thing about it all and A. N. Other who likes the simple things of life?

Yes, a balance needs to be struck, but remember that many people just want it simple and want it to work.

For instnace, here is me. I'm a systems administrator and in many cases I hate it when I got zillions of scripts, Java applets and ActiveX stuff popping about all over the place.

I only visit CNET news because I can view and perticipate without letting even one script or applet run! Visiting a site only to have to download this and that and the next-door-neighbours-wife (hmmmm... Maybe not the latter) just puts me off a web site all together.

Put it another way. I don't like http://www.odeon.co.uk/Odeon/home.html but I do like http://www.odeon.co.uk/pls/Odeon/Odeon_text.region_list

I am no way disabled, but navigating through the latter (text version) is a far more pleasent and less stressful experience.

That's my own personal opinion. If you don't like it tough! At the end of the day you can make the most flashy web site about, but if the audience don't like it then you've wasted all that time and effort.

Get the jist?

Some of this *is* about making things easier. . .

Do you really believe the only benefit to making browsers more standards compliant is to make web sites more flashy and add additional features?

Wow. What an poorly thought out end user point of view. Never thought about how it might make life easier for the developer, did you? That can benefit the user in a lot of unseen ways, not just by "better features", but maybe by more content and less errors as well. There are a lot of indirect benefits you're ruling out by just saying "I don't like fancy junk, so who cares?"

I agree that a lot of web pages have too much junk on them, but to simply write off better standards support as unimportant just because some designers will use it to add junk seems extreme to me.

[202578300049013666264380294439]

Missing the obvious

The story clearly points out that this (long overdue) upgrade to IE is primarily aimed at fixing security problems and that other changes to IE aren't as important for this go around. If IE didn't have a boatload of security problems then I could see meeting standards (even arbitrarily set ones like Acid2) as the next most important thing.

Lets hope that MS doesn't hold off on the IE 7.1 release for years too and that after they've fixed as much of the security problems they can in this release that the next release is dedicated to fixing IE's deplorable "standards" compliance and not the latest new fad at the Redmond campus which have been the driving force behind earlier IE releases.

[202578300049013666264380294439]

Missing the obvious

The story clearly points out that this (long overdue) upgrade to IE is primarily aimed at fixing security problems and that other changes to IE aren't as important for this go around. If IE didn't have a boatload of security problems then I could see meeting standards (even arbitrarily set ones like Acid2) as the next most important thing.

Lets hope that MS doesn't hold off on the IE 7.1 release for years too and that after they've fixed as much of the security problems they can in this release that the next release is dedicated to fixing IE's deplorable "standards" compliance and not the latest new fad at the Redmond campus which have been the driving force behind earlier IE releases.

[CharlesJo.com]

No way!

MS is building proprietary stuff that will give them leverage in the software and related business? OMG.

[CharlesJo.com]

No way!

MS is building proprietary stuff that will give them leverage in the software and related business? OMG.