But Thunderbird has never been mentioned by anyone in any meetings I've ever been a part of.Thunderbird is a more logical comparison to Outlook Express, or Mail/Entourage for the Mac.
As for anything, when it becomes popular enough, virus and spyware writers will turn their attention to it. If it runs on the Windows platform, security is always an issue.
As for features, I have yet to catch on to tabbed browsing. I don't like keeping more than 3-4 pages open at once anyway, preferring to have a nice bookmark system in place to open pages when I need them.
SagaLore
Elite Member
- Dec 18, 2001
- 24,036
- 21
- 81
That is total BS. I can understand requiring a service pack or hotfix. But to selectively cut out Windows 2000 users, which is STILL an MS supported OS, and which happens to be on over half my network as well as every server... I hope the antitrust crowd wakes up.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
If you're talking about the windows taskbar they're hardly comparable. The taskbar has entries for everything running, this means browser "tabs" are randomly stuck inbetween whatever else is running. XP's taskbar grouping is more of an annoyance than a feature, AFAIK it's not configurable so it's either grouped or not but with real tabs you can group tabs inside of browser windows. With tabs I can middle-click on a link, have it open that link in the background in a new tab, even if I hit "open in new window" in IE the window pops up on top and requires me to switch back to the original window. I can save tab sessions so that if my browser crashes (or I forcefully kill it) it'll start back up with all of the previous tabs and windows open. I can switch tabs by hitting alt+<num>, hitting alt+tab to switch tasks is nearly random, every time you switch windows the order gets moved around and you have to hold down alt and keep hitting tab until you stumble upon the right window.
I could probably come up with more, but it's late and I should get to bed.
Outlook is also a toy, it's just the toy that most people seem to choose to hurt themselves with.
rh71
No Lifer
- Aug 28, 2001
- 52,844
- 1,049
- 126
That about sums it up. It's too bad Firefox is late to the game. Windows (obviously with IE) is too big an uphill climb. Think of all the non-techy folks (who definitely are the majority) who will never give FF a try because IE does the job. Don't call me naive.. call me a realist.
BTW, I hope IE7 is more than just security fixes...
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,572
- 10,208
- 126
I guess you missed the public announcement last year - that there would be no more standalone IE upgrade versions? I guess this IE7 announcement implies that there is going to be an OS refresh released soon, perhaps this is the "XP Reloaded" that has been rumored about - a combination of XP SP2 (which itself is not "XP Reloaded), in combination with an updated IE, IE7. Probably a few new themes thrown in as well, and perhaps WinForms2/Avalon integrated? (That last one is pure speculation on my part, but if IE7's UI is based on it, that would make sense.)
So the message from Redmond is - "If you're not running the 'latest and greatest' MS OS - don't expect any future updates from us".
MS has already clearly abandoned W2K, even though it is still officially "supported" according to their prior roadmaps. But they don't care. They want to push their newest OS distro, before the major bugs are even worked out of the last release.
Not to mention, that in order to obtain future updates, you have to allow MS to individually tag your machine now, in order to "validate" it for updates.
SagaLore
Elite Member
- Dec 18, 2001
- 24,036
- 21
- 81
It's all BS. :| What the hell am I supposed to run on my servers? XP? Will 2003 get IE7?
I like XP okay, but when they added all that default crap to their professional addition, it makes it very hard to deploy in a corporate environment. XP Pro should have looked just like 2000 Pro for an easier transition. Now our company has made a huge investment in time and money to move to 2000 only several years ago, and they pull this.
tabbed browsing is an excellent feature that every internet browser should have. even on AIM, people love tabbed windows as soon as they're introduced to it.
windows xp tried to introduce tabbed windows in the taskbar, but that sort of failed. i hope they (microsoft) will try to introduce tabbed windows to internet explorer. options are always good. if internet explorer puts in plugins/extensions and tabbed browsing, it's goodbye to firefox for me.
windows xp tried to introduce tabbed windows in the taskbar, but that sort of failed. i hope they (microsoft) will try to introduce tabbed windows to internet explorer. options are always good. if internet explorer puts in plugins/extensions and tabbed browsing, it's goodbye to firefox for me.
Megatomic
Lifer
- Nov 9, 2000
- 20,127
- 6
- 81
I guess I learned how to browse the web my way prior to the advent of tabbed browsing, perhaps that's why I don't care if IE adopts them or not. And perhaps that's why tabbed browsing is so important to the younger users, they learned to browse with it.
Regarding security, I suppose it's the same deal. I learned to be safe on my own before it became such a public priority. A secure browser is nice, but it's no substitute for hardware firewalling and safe practices.
This about sums it up for me.
Regarding security, I suppose it's the same deal. I learned to be safe on my own before it became such a public priority. A secure browser is nice, but it's no substitute for hardware firewalling and safe practices.
This about sums it up for me.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
I learned to browse the web without tabs too, but I also learned to browse with tabs and can't stand to use a browser without that feature now, it's called evolution.
A hardware firewall will do very little for you if the webpage you're visiting has malicious content.
*** caution *** lots of text ahead *** caution ***
Let's face it: not all people are computer savvy. We may know how to download alternate browser, install extensions, customize the mouse buttons to do fancy things. But for the rest of newborn computer users, don't even know the difference between "The Internet" and a web browser. All they know is that windows come with a button that says "Windows Update" which should be clicked every once in a while to get the latest and greatest tool available to them.
Unfortunately, the way the web is viewed by average users (one who just use the web and not work on the web) is different from the users who do computer or web-related works.
Here's some more:
A: Microsoft said that they've listened to their customers, and they promise to deliver the greatly improved and "secure" web browsing experience to the customers. Average users won't know or care what the "improvements and security" means. All they know is if it's greatly improved and secured, it must be good.
B: Microsoft knows their marketing
A: For average users (non computer savvy, casual browser, i-only-want-to-check-my-email person), they browse the web page-by-page, alternating between the links and the back button. Some may start to notice the "open in new window" option that pops up when they click on a link. And even then, they won't get to open too many pages and switching back and forth between IE and other applications. The clutters on the windows taskbar won't be too bothersome to them, as they most likely don't do multi-tasking while browsing.
B: This pretty much kills the need for the tabbed browsing for average users.
A1: Windows come bundled with "The Internet" (errr... i meant Internet Explorer). All that's needed is an internet connection and i'll be able to see porns as it's meant to be. Why bother looking for a different "Internet" (errr.. i meant, web browser)? If it's not broken, no need to fix it
A2: Some people are still living on dialup (me being one). Some of the dial-up people pay by the minute (mine included). At the rate of 1$ an hour for a (supposedly) 56k connection, how many people are willing to download a web browser (which may or may not work to his/her liking) if one is already available?
B: Alternative browser cannot gain market share.
C: Whatever has the biggest power controls the world. Unfortunately, this could mean IE7 can be made however bad (please, don't) or good, and microsoft can still get away with it because "you can always keep your software up-to-date anytime by visiting our automatic update page" whenever a problem starts to make it to the media.
A: "How come this webpage looks all nice and fancy on IE on my computer, but looks ugly and broken on your computer that's running an animal browser -- what's the name? burning .. fox ... something?"
B: Average users don't care if the page is done with proper X/HTML or CSS or XML or PNG or TABLE or whatever. All they care is they go to the page, they can see what they want to see, and get going.
C: The webmaster may be the one to blame because they cater their site to a particular browser. Unfortunately, in some business practice, designing for the major browser is more important than following the web standards. Every time point A happens, a customer may be driven away from the site, and that means lost business.
D: Whether microsoft decided to support web standards or css or png or whatever, or to add proprietary tags or quirks mode or whatever, won't be noticable to average users because all they care is how the webmaster presents the page.
Personally, i welcome the plan for releasing an "all new and improved web browser". After all, it's competition that drives the improvement of a product. Most people have had enough with the troubles of supporting multiple browsers and the lack of consistencies among browsers. If everything can start following the web standards (instead of self-declared standards), life would be much easier for web programmers.
But if the plan for IE7 is all because IE is losing market share, and IE7 is pushed forward to keep people from switching without delivering much of the promised improvement, then "sorry microsoft, but i guess i just want to be friends with you ..." </3
As much as we try to deny it, end-users are still the one controlling how the web will evolve. Web designers and developers may scream web standard support, and others may try to push pop-up blocking and uninstall-able IE and tabbed browsing. Yet in the end, as long as the application developer (in this case, microsoft) knows their marketing, they can release whatever product they want however they want as long as they can make the end-user happy to be using "the latest and greatest and safest internet"
cliff notes: see the second paragraph and the paragraph above this
see also: IE Update to Debut Ahead of Plans among others
consider: the deployment of stand-alone and alternative web browsers to non-broadband users.
hint: some users have just learned how to use the computer and the "internet"
Let's face it: not all people are computer savvy. We may know how to download alternate browser, install extensions, customize the mouse buttons to do fancy things. But for the rest of newborn computer users, don't even know the difference between "The Internet" and a web browser. All they know is that windows come with a button that says "Windows Update" which should be clicked every once in a while to get the latest and greatest tool available to them.
Unfortunately, the way the web is viewed by average users (one who just use the web and not work on the web) is different from the users who do computer or web-related works.
Here's some more:
A: Microsoft said that they've listened to their customers, and they promise to deliver the greatly improved and "secure" web browsing experience to the customers. Average users won't know or care what the "improvements and security" means. All they know is if it's greatly improved and secured, it must be good.
B: Microsoft knows their marketing
A: For average users (non computer savvy, casual browser, i-only-want-to-check-my-email person), they browse the web page-by-page, alternating between the links and the back button. Some may start to notice the "open in new window" option that pops up when they click on a link. And even then, they won't get to open too many pages and switching back and forth between IE and other applications. The clutters on the windows taskbar won't be too bothersome to them, as they most likely don't do multi-tasking while browsing.
B: This pretty much kills the need for the tabbed browsing for average users.
A1: Windows come bundled with "The Internet" (errr... i meant Internet Explorer). All that's needed is an internet connection and i'll be able to see porns as it's meant to be. Why bother looking for a different "Internet" (errr.. i meant, web browser)? If it's not broken, no need to fix it
A2: Some people are still living on dialup (me being one). Some of the dial-up people pay by the minute (mine included). At the rate of 1$ an hour for a (supposedly) 56k connection, how many people are willing to download a web browser (which may or may not work to his/her liking) if one is already available?
B: Alternative browser cannot gain market share.
C: Whatever has the biggest power controls the world. Unfortunately, this could mean IE7 can be made however bad (please, don't) or good, and microsoft can still get away with it because "you can always keep your software up-to-date anytime by visiting our automatic update page" whenever a problem starts to make it to the media.
A: "How come this webpage looks all nice and fancy on IE on my computer, but looks ugly and broken on your computer that's running an animal browser -- what's the name? burning .. fox ... something?"
B: Average users don't care if the page is done with proper X/HTML or CSS or XML or PNG or TABLE or whatever. All they care is they go to the page, they can see what they want to see, and get going.
C: The webmaster may be the one to blame because they cater their site to a particular browser. Unfortunately, in some business practice, designing for the major browser is more important than following the web standards. Every time point A happens, a customer may be driven away from the site, and that means lost business.
D: Whether microsoft decided to support web standards or css or png or whatever, or to add proprietary tags or quirks mode or whatever, won't be noticable to average users because all they care is how the webmaster presents the page.
Personally, i welcome the plan for releasing an "all new and improved web browser". After all, it's competition that drives the improvement of a product. Most people have had enough with the troubles of supporting multiple browsers and the lack of consistencies among browsers. If everything can start following the web standards (instead of self-declared standards), life would be much easier for web programmers.
But if the plan for IE7 is all because IE is losing market share, and IE7 is pushed forward to keep people from switching without delivering much of the promised improvement, then "sorry microsoft, but i guess i just want to be friends with you ..." </3
As much as we try to deny it, end-users are still the one controlling how the web will evolve. Web designers and developers may scream web standard support, and others may try to push pop-up blocking and uninstall-able IE and tabbed browsing. Yet in the end, as long as the application developer (in this case, microsoft) knows their marketing, they can release whatever product they want however they want as long as they can make the end-user happy to be using "the latest and greatest and safest internet"
cliff notes: see the second paragraph and the paragraph above this
see also: IE Update to Debut Ahead of Plans among others
consider: the deployment of stand-alone and alternative web browsers to non-broadband users.
hint: some users have just learned how to use the computer and the "internet"
Tabbed browsing is OK, but it's not the reason I use Firefox. IE7 will still be terrible as long as it incorporates ActiveX.
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
I use firefox for Cookie Culler and Adblock, add those 2 things to IE and i will come back.
By the way, why in hell have they not integrated adblock into firefox yet?
By the way, why in hell have they not integrated adblock into firefox yet?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter