Internet Explorer 7

Beta 2 is out, and the beta’s open to the public*. I haven’t had the chance to play with this one yet, but the first beta was a big improvement over IE6.

* Beta software can do weird things, install at your own risk, if it eats your computer don’t blame me, etc etc etc.

23 thoughts on “Internet Explorer 7

  1. Stephen says:

    I got “This package does not install on your operating system’s current service pack level”.

    I think I’ll manage to contain my disappointment.

    For the record: WinXP Pro 2000 SP1. (I know, it’s the work machine.) So I guess this means my Win2K box at home (for checking websites under IE Win, OK? Hardly gets booted more than once a month) is definitely out of luck. Which seems dumb. Unless Microsoft figure there’s no mileage in a free browser unless they can also put pressure on people to upgrade…

  2. David says:

    It says on the page

    “Evaluation of Internet Explorer 7 should start now, but the software should not be used on production systems in mission-critical environments. Internet Explorer 7 Beta 2 Preview will only run on Windows® XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) systems, but will ultimately be available for Windows Vista, Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, and Windows Server 2003. ”

    Windows 2000 is not really supported any more. Also there will be a lot of things in ie which will need xp features.

  3. Stephen says:

    Fine print, we don’t read no steenkin’ fine print.

    Win2K was the pinnacle of Windows development, which is why Microsoft hurried on with almost-obscene haste to introduce XP, with its kindergarten UI embellishments. Well, I suppose OS X might have been a reason too…

  4. Anonymous says:

    > 2000 wasn’t even as good as 98.

    Oh, in my experience it was a million times better. 98 was a crashy nightmare for me, no doubt exascerbated by constant software installs and uninstalls, but 2K was rock-solid. Most of the time.

  5. david says:

    Win2k is light-years ahead of 98 in most aspects. 98 was only good for older games and low-spec machines as it was *really* fast but it’s memory management sucks and it is extremely volatile if anything crashes. And it has absolutely no security. At all. None.

  6. Gary says:

    That reminds me, my in-laws are running 98 and it’s a menace – where’s the cheapest place to get a (legal) copy of XP Home these days, O Great Sage of Buying Computery Things Online?

  7. david says:

    Everyone and their gran sell them nowadays. A retail upgrade box is about £80 and an OEM one (which technically isn’t allowed unless you’re selling it with a new PC) is about £60 from ebuyer.

  8. Squander Two says:

    My experience of 98 was very good. The occasional crash, but not much more than a Mac. 2000, on the other hand, was utterly, utterly ugly. Who cares about its memory management when looking at the screen is like having nails scratched down a blackboard and poked into your eyes, and using it is like being shouted at by imbeciles?

  9. Gary says:

    > I’d imagine finding bugs is a good thing.

    Oh, absolutely. The problem with public betas IMO, though, is that people tend to ignore the “beta” bit :)

  10. tm says:

    Wow! Glad Joe had such a good experince of 98 – someone had to! ;-)

    But give it it’s due – 98 SE is easily the best of the 9X family. ME surely must be MS’s worst operating system ever? I’d rather re-install Windows 95 over the top of my XP box than use it for five minutes.

    Perception changes with time though – I actually had to go back to supporting W98 for a customer last year and OMG! you don’t realise how much things have moved on. It was *so* much worse than I remembered (and i didn’t like it that much first time around).

  11. Anonymous says:

    > 2000 wasn’t even as good as 98.

    I’m sure you must mean ME wasn’t as good as 98? 2000 rocked. Many people still use it because XP is only a slight improvement on 2k (faster boots, uglier Luna theme, Roll back).

  12. Tony Kiernan says:

    >>MSN UK doesn’t look very nice in IE[7]

    Does this mean that all the folk that only ever tested their sites in IE are gonna have to learn to be standards compliant? Let’s hope so. Also, that all them crap ‘fixes’ for ie can get tae fuck.

  13. david says:

    >>I actually had to go back to supporting W98 for a customer last year and OMG

    At my last job we had a business critical system running on little windows 98 network and it was a nightmare. To get backups even close to working I had to hook up a 2K machine as I couldn’t get the software or drivers working on 98. And the whole thing fell over on a daily basis.

    Prior to that I went to a client site in Ayr that was running Windows NT 3.5.1. That took a bit of remembering!

  14. Squander Two says:

    When I worked for British Gas Services, it was all Win 3.5. Unbelievable.

    I was using 95 at work until a few weeks ago. I was very pleasantly surprised by how bad it wasn’t. That’s probably mainly due to very low expectations, mind. It was insanely slow.

  15. tm says:

    >Windows NT 3.5.1.

    ahh, that takes me back…

    >using 95 at work until a few

    well the main thing is – if you don’t connect it to a newtork and (more particularly) if you’re not the person expected to get it to *work* while connected to a network you’ll probably just about get by. It does suck compared to 98 though (and in fact compared to 3.11 with a decent IP stack on it, but who remembers that? ;-)).

    You’re right though – I always approach software with low expectations – that way I’m so much less disappointed. ;-)

Comments are closed.