Tabs; Improved web page printing; RSS feeds right in the browser; New Security stuff, like scanning websites for phishing; and a buncha more.
==========
Sounds a lot like Firefox
==========
I installed it and it is a vast improvement over v6, particularly being able to print a web page without the right side of it getting cut off.
========
Now THAT's an improvement. Think I'll download it myself.

John

Any different than the last beta? I have been using it for a while now and really like it. I have yet to download the final version though as I am still using the last beta.

j razz

On second thought, it appears that Microsoft has created a browser that REQUIRES Windows XP or higher. It appears to be a lame attempt on their part to "force" users to upgrade from Windows 2000 or earlier. Undoubtedly this will backfire because their chief competitor, Firefox, doesn't require this and does all of the things IE 7 purports to do and more.

On principle alone I won't install it.

John

Actually I liked Windows 3.1 the best and that other browser , what was the name of it?

JJK

"what was the name of it?" Netscape??

Seriously, been using Netscape for years, hate IE. Just switched to Firefox about 8 months ago, basically a more evolved Netscape.

I only use IE for one website. I go straight there and nowhere else with IE. (no, not p0rn, it's Ameritrade)

I have no desire at all, nor need, to try the new version of IE.

craftech wrote: "it appears that Microsoft has created a browser that REQUIRES Windows XP or higher. It appears to be a lame attempt on their part to "force" users to upgrade from Windows 2000 or earlier.

So you don't think it's even remotely possible that IE7 relies on some XP functionality? It absolutely MUST be a conspiracy that IE7 doesn't run on six year old software? When Windows 2000 came out did you expect software written for it to run on Windows 3.1? Because that's what was six years old at the time 2000 came out.

craftech wrote: "it appears that Microsoft has created a browser that REQUIRES Windows XP or higher. It appears to be a lame attempt on their part to "force" users to upgrade from Windows 2000 or earlier.

Isn't it ironic how things change? It WAS that windows 98 REQUIRED ie4. Oh well... I don't guess MS can 'innovate' very well.

I too use ie for one site. It bugs me to no end that I 'have' to use it all. And why with that site? Because ms doesn't want to abide by any industry 'standards'.

I think it's worse than that--I think it requires XPsp2.

Walt Mossberg did a writeup in the Wall Street Journal today, and said it's an improvement over IE6, but if you're already using Firefox, don't bother...

EDIT:

Yup, requires sp2. Since I'm perfectly happy with sp1, I'll stick with Firefox, which is a very nice and clean browser.

Yup, requires sp2. Since I'm perfectly happy with sp1, I'll stick with Firefox, which is a very nice and clean browser.
===============
Amen to that Riredale. If Mozilla can make a browser that's compatible with eveyone's computer so can Microsoft.

John

John, that's a bad analogy. If MS wanted to do EXACTLY what Mozilla did (the same code), then yes, it would run on sp1 and Windows 2000. But it's NOT the same code.

Look, I use Firefox and am not intending to jump to IE7 (because I use a lot of Firefox extensions that IE won't have), so I'm not Mr. "Microsoft rulez!!!" But I don't think it's at all unreasonable or unexpected of them to adapt their software to their operating system. And since one of the major goals for IE is better security, it makes perfect sense for them to require the most up-to-date version of the operating system, since IE would use certain elements of it.

It's not uncommon at all for software to require the latest version of the OS. Macs are famous for it. Even the latest drivers Blackmagic cards require SP2, if I recall.

And if you're sticking with Windows 2000, get ready to be annoyed at a lot of software companies as soon as Vista starts to take root and companies tailor their software to it.

I do feel your pain, but I just think it's unfair to dump all of the blame on MS. Besides, they never claimed there'd be free updates to IE forever.

Fred

But I don't think it's at all unreasonable or unexpected of them to adapt their software to their operating system.
================
I think you may be forgetting that Microsoft integrated Internet Explorer INTO their operating system. Since Windows 95 OSR2 the OS wouldn't run WITHOUT Internet Explorer.
Therefore I think that unless someone specifically demonstrates that IE7 contains some magic whiz-bang feature that REQUIRES Windows XP SP2 to function I think it is safe to assume that Microsoft is doing exactly what I suggested. Engaging in a lame attempt at forcing people to "upgrade" the OS in order to use IE7. It will surely backfire.

============
And since one of the major goals for IE is better security, it makes perfect sense for them to require the most up-to-date version of the operating system, since IE would use certain elements of it.
=============

The number of security updates for Internet Exporer versions 5&6 is mind boggling. If better security is the goal of IE7 it will be a first for Microsoft.

John

So, after two years Internet Explorer has managed to do somewhat of what Firefox has done all along, and I'm not just talking about tabs here. I never used to think IE was that bad, because it honestly wasn't, it was just that Firefox was much better. Now, with IE7 coming out almost a year later than it should have, I'm sorry to say the gap is too wide. However, just like AOL, I do expect the older kids to say "its not that bad i use it, or, think it's gotten a lot better, or, i've gotten used to it, or, my clients use this so i do too"

I don't need a bandwagon to know that Firefox is better than IE or Opera or Netscape. With the proper customization and hardware support (mainly DX10), Vista is going to be a nice upgrade. IE7 is just another way of introducing the new toys. Remember, without Netscape Internet Explorer wouldn't be a single package free product, and without Firefox, Internet Explorer 7 wouldn't be more than 5.5. Maybe by 8.0 Internet Explorer will win, that's when everyone starts re-writing their code from scratch using .NET 3.0.

And we're taking microsofts word that IE is more "secure". lol Thats what they said about SP2 and they still push updates/pathces down every week.

I'm not so sure about people jumping on the Vista bandwagon so quickly. There was an article on CNET (yeah I know) about MS only allowing 1 transfer of Vista. It still has not been resolved how they will handle upgrades.

Vista license change article.

Of all the people that have commented, almost all have been negative. Even the vocal ms fanboys (read ms employees) are having trouble trying to spin that fiasco.

And we're taking microsofts word that IE is more "secure". lol Thats what they said about SP2 and they still push updates/pathces down every week.

There will, of course, still be security problems. When you're a target as big as MS, and the hacking resources of the entire world are out to get you, only a fool would expect perfection. The simple fact is that IE7 and SP2 ARE more secure. Does that mean there won't be updates and patches? Hell no, but that doesn't mean that no security work has been done, or that IE7 and SP2 didn't address security. Firefox has had security problems too, but it's not seen as the evil empire that Microsoft is, so it's not attacked as much. The people who find and exploit security flaws in MS products aren't just people who casually noticed a flaw, they're people who put a ton of time and effort into it. They're not people to be admired (except the ones who actually do do it to help), especially at the expense of the folks trying to tighten up security.

I don't know what you're expecting security-wise, but it's certainly not something you're going to see from ANY company.

As for "taking Microsoft's word," no, we're not taking MS' word. If IE7 is chock full of security holes we'll be hearing about it soon enough. Certainly the early reviews of Vista (and a couple I've read for IE7) have mentioned the improvements in security.

Fred

I've just changed from Firefox to Opera. I think Opera's use of tabs is better than Firefox (though Firefox 2.0 uses the same scheme), and the ability to see all links on a page is invaluable.

Add your own search engines, Widgets, and a nice sleek interface all make Opera a little but better than Firefox.

IMHO, of course.

Worley

"I don't need a bandwagon to know that Firefox is better than IE or Opera or Netscape."

Of course, Firefox IS Netscape, which IS Mozilla. All three browsers are the same code. The only differences are a few slight GUI tweaks.

When you're a target as big as MS, and the hacking resources of the entire world are out to get you, only a fool would expect perfection. ..........Firefox has had security problems too, but it's not seen as the evil empire that Microsoft is, so it's not attacked as much.
==========
That's a good one.

Internet Explorer 6 ALONE has had 339 security updates SO FAR as compared to Firefox's 54 collectively for ALL Firefox versions.

I would hardly call that picking on poor Microsoft and it's "evil empire" as you put it.

John

Internet Explorer 6 ALONE has had 339 security updates SO FAR as compared to Firefox's 54 collectively for ALL Firefox versions.

If FF had 90% of the marketshare like IE does, then there would be more exploits for it as well.

If I was a virus/malware guy, I wouldn't bother writing anything for FF when potentially only 10% (or so) of the computers in the world would be effected.

Wait until FF becomes more popular, you will start seeing more exploits for it as well.

If FF had 90% of the marketshare like IE does, then there would be more exploits for it as well

You might as well say that because MS is so big and they have had so much trouble with IE, they have had 100 times as many programmer hours put into making IE6 100 times more secure than Firefox.

Hmmm, it doesn't seem to work that way.

Microsoft has created the perfect example of a bloated bureaucracy, where nobody can do anything without signoff from Dilbert-inspired middle managers (each promoted as long as he is doing a good job, until finally he goes one step beyond his competence, then staying in that position for lack of promotability, see Peter Principle for how this asymptotically fills the organization with 100% incompetent talent).

Furthermore the IE6 code was purposely partly woven into Windows, creating a beefy supply of security problems even for other browser users.

Look also at how many of of MS's core applications (Outlook, Word, etc.) have everyday bugs that have remained unfixed for more than 10 years...

Look at their upcoming media player, "coming Zune" (according to them!). Anything new there? Whatsoever?

Their stock could actually make a very attractive investment, if you know how to trade short positions and put options.

Ballmer would have fixed the company by now if he could have, and I don't see anyone else...

Internet Explorer 6 ALONE has had 339 security updates SO FAR as compared to Firefox's 54 collectively for ALL Firefox versions.
=======

If FF had 90% of the marketshare like IE does, then there would be more exploits for it as well.
============

Some of the fly-by-night websites have their stats pretty screwed up. Personally I trust the estimates by PC World in which they state:

[[March 2006: Firefox's share of PCWorld.com visits was 20.26 percent
April 2006: 21.44 percent
May 2006: 22.92 percent
June 2006 (so far): 23.98 percent

The growth looks like it's happening at the expense of IE 6.0--here's that browser's usage on our site (this is for plain-vanilla IE 6.0, not counting variants such as the AOL version):

March 2006: 66.03 percent
April 2006: 62.33 percent
May 2006: 59.50 percent
June 2006 (so far): 57.53 percent ]]
------
That's pretty good considering that Microsoft hijacked it's market share by integrating the browser into it's operating system whether people liked it or not.

The point is that my answer :

"Internet Explorer 6 ALONE has had 339 security updates SO FAR as compared to Firefox's 54 collectively for ALL Firefox versions."

...was in response to the suggestion above that poor Microsoft was being singled out for it's security flaws and that Firefox was getting a free pass, and that they were somehow equal to one another in numbers of security flaws. Of course, that notion was and is nonsense.

In terms of your suggestion that the lower number of security updates in Firefox is due to a lower percentage of interest amongst thieves is completely irrational for several reasons:

*1. Not being a part of the operating system makes any reasonably well thought out browser less vulnerable than Internet Explorer.

Firefox is simply an application. If a piece of garbage hacks into Firefox they can't take control of your entire system as easily as they can with Internet Explorer. Is Microsoft looking to change that MAJOR flaw with Internet Explorer 7? - NO!
Instead they are looking to try to FORCE users to upgrade to Windows XP SP2 in order for IE7 to function, but it will STILL be part of the Operating System albeit an operating system that FOR NOW is reasonably secure. This is the main reason I decided not to download it. There may be other compelling reasons for people to upgrade to Windows XP SP2, but NOT just so one can have the honor of using IE 7. Please!

2. Firefox does not support Active X plug-ins or VB Script a major vulnerability in IE. In fact I disabled Active X in IE6 and VBscripting as well. If I need bells and whistles I use Firefox. Many of the worst exploits against Internet Explorer have taken advantage of security holes in these two technologies. In addition to those two Firefox does not use Microsoft's Java VM, which has a history of having more security problems than other Java VMs.

3. Firefox is compact in size (5 MB) as compared to IE (77MB). There is less code that makes up Firefox than IE and thus potentially less vulnerability.

4. Hackers and thieves don't care which hole they crawl through to get into your computer. The personal information they seek is the same information.

5. Unlike Internet Explorer, Firefox can not become infected with spyware just because you visited a malicious Web page.

John

John, you missed my entire point about MS being singled out. I DO NOT mean singled out by people pointing fingers and saying "look at the holes," I mean singled out by HACKERS. As someone else pointed out, if FF had the market share that IE does it would start showing its holes too, because more people would be attacking it.

Plus, not all of the security fixes for IE were the result of outside people finding them. Most of them were discovered by MS and patched before anyone else found them and used them.

If you were writing viruses and other malicious software would you go after a program that only a small percentage of people are using? I don't think you would. You'd try to impact as many people as possible.

And regarding whether FF is more secure because it's not part of the OS, it doesn't really matter as much as you think it does. (Book)Mark my words, if FF reaches a user base of 50% or more you'll start hearing about a raft of security problems. Java and Javascript can be used to infect computers, and FF uses both.

But none of this matters. The issue is not whether there are NO security holes in IE, it's that you're saying there's no reason to require the latest OS to run it, and in that regard you're just plain wrong. Whining that it's still not perfect does absolutely nothing to change that fact. IE7 relies on things in XP SP2. That doesn't necessarily make it bulletproof, but it's perfectly reasonable (and expected) for MS to require it, and it's not merely to sell more seats of software.

Here's how I see it: MS says, "IE7 requires XP and SP2 because it makes use of some new security features." You say, "Well, since it's not 100% bulletproof, you should give up and let me use an old operating system."

See, MS makes efforts to stop the problem and you're saying you're not going to follow their recommendation, then you complain that they haven't stopped the problem. I just think that's hypocritical.

5. Unlike Internet Explorer, Firefox can not become infected with spyware just because you visited a malicious Web page.

Maybe not (I don't know), but your computer can.