Reader Comments

"Web developers are hamstrung into writing to it at the expense of established standards which work equally well" If other methods work "equally well" what's the problem with MS sticking to their guns?? By your own statement it works equally well. Or should MS spend ages, further delaying the security IE needs, in order to not progress any further??

I noticed that line and figured he meant that the others do meet those web standards and those standards work just fine.

Mr. Paul - you are jumping the gun. From what you say, the IE7 team realizes that it misses the web standards mark but that it is working to bring their browser in line with them as much as it can as it can. But you are all a scretchin' for a boycott !?? If a website doesn't meet web standards in how it is HTMLed and coded, is that Microsoft's fault? It is up to the website owners to make sure that their public websites are coded to public standards. MSIE offers many technologies that as "extras", but thoses were really meant for "in house" use. When a company designs a website and CHOOSES a non-standard technology for that website, who's fault is that? IBM's? RedHat's Microsoft's Apple's ? It's the responsibility of the website owners to comply with web standards. Why go screaming "Boycott!" ??

"My advice here is simple: Boycott Internet Explorer. It is a cancer on the Web, and must be stopped. IE is insecure and is not standards-compliant, which makes it unworkable for both end users and Web content creators. However, because of user base, Web developers are hamstrung into writing to it at the expense of established standards which work equally well in all other browsers. You can turn the tide by demanding better from Microsoft and using a better alternative Web browser. I recommend and use Mozilla Firefox, but Apple Safari (Mac only) and Opera 8 are both worth considering as well". NUFF SAID: STOP THE ROTT

Theres more compatability issues with Safari than IE if you ask me. Theres loads of code which displays fine in opera, IE, Firefox, Netscape, but does not display correctly in Safari. Take css opacity for example.

I said this months ago when IE7 was announced: "IE 7 will be underwhelming." IE7 is just MS's response to the success of Firefox. They are not going to put any money or energy behind a free web browser, especially one as mangled as IE, when they have the ever-delayed Vista to get out the door. C'mon, you really thought MS would finally turn IE into the browser it should have been?

"If a website doesn't meet web standards in how it is HTMLed and coded, is that Microsoft's fault?" Normally I don't jump on the 'bash MS' bandwagon - I usually attempt to view any issue from a fairly level-headed perspective. But this one is so starkly, incredibly obvious, that there is almost zero justification for taking any other position. Is it MS's fault? Um, why, yes, yes it is. If a web developer codes a 100% standards compliant website and 80%-90% of the viewers of that site not only cannot get it to render correctly, but it is so badly broken that they cannot even NAVIGATE it, the web developer has NO CHOICE but to hack through his/her 'formerly' 100% standards-compliant website to accommodate the significant, and well documented shortcomings of the most popular browser on the planet. Microsoft, in deciding that IE won the browser war and needed no resources assigned to its continued improvement, condemned web developers to a type of programmer's hell. I'm not a web developer, but I certainly can appreciate the absolute nightmare Microsoft has created for the web development community. Paul is right. The only way to get Microsoft to realize that backwards compatibility for IE is just plain stupid, is to try and get as many people as possible to quit using it. If the user base is small, then backward compatibility is irrelevant. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone will have much luck in significantly shrinking the IE user base, but I certainly applaud all efforts to do so. This product space needs competition - it has been almost devoid of innovation for 4 years. If we see how impressive the web can become with full utilization of already established standards, I think we'll be surprised. Unfortunately I have to use IE (too long to explain here), but I look forward to the day when choosing a browser has nothing to do with how it renders pages, because they all do it the same way.

"Microsoft will fail to fully support the latest CSS standard in IE 7." Microsoft? Ignoring STANDARDS? What a shock. I think I'm going to DIE from that shock.

And you wonder why so many of us find Microsoft distasteful...these b a s t a r d s hijacked the web, muddied it up with a bunch of proprietary crap, and now refuse to play by the rules. Like a buncha playground thugs, they are.

What's the big deal. Use the browser you wish to use. No one is stopping anyone from using firefox. I don't like it because it takes years to even open up. Microsoft IE works much better, considering the sites I visit. I don't really care about standards, I care about a site that is functional, I haven't had any problems visiting sites in IE like I have other sites. That's not my take, but it's the take of 4 billion people who use the web and IE, they don't know the product doesn't work, they are still going to buy vista with a brand new bloated Pentium which costs 20 percent more than it should.

"My advice here is simple: Boycott Internet Explorer." Hell no?

As a developer, IE did give us fancy things we could do that the other browsers couldn't. They were trying to innovate but not in an open way. They should make it compliant. If they are worried about backwards compatability why can't we specify something in the meta data to indicate my page is not for IE7. They could just use IE6 code for those pages.

Totally agreed... As sites can recognize the OS of the client computer, they should (and they can) recognize the Browser Platform and translate it... Later, those sites with the IE6 code would just pass out and leave the ground free for a hipotetically IE7-(standards compliant)-coded-sites. They can do it... but ya know what!? They don't want music. He he. I use Mozilla Firefox, and despite the update-entire-soft feature, it works really smooth. If Windows could update without IE, nor it wasn't so integrated to the shell, I'd uninstall it at once (with certain software).

"They were trying to innovate but not in an open way. They should make it compliant." For Micro$oft, being compliant with standards WOULD be "innovative".

IE6 is reasonably standard compliant when the page specifies the strict HTML4.01 using the !DOCTYPE tag. If they improve the standard compliance even farther, why would we boycott it then?

"Windows is a security nightmare." Paul Thurrott "Longhorn is a trainwreck." - Paul Thurrott "Microsoft is years behind Apple." - Paul Thurrott "Windows Vista Beta 1 is full of rookie mistakes." - Paul Thurrott ...and now... "Boycott Internet Explorer. It is a cancer on the Web, and must be stopped." - Paul Thurrott "I recommend and use Mozilla Firefox, but Apple Safari (Mac only) and Opera 8 are both worth considering as well." - Paul Thurrott Thanks Paul, more ammo against the M$ Fanatics!!!

Thanks for ruining the best on-topic discussion this site has seen in months with your pro-Apple, anti-Microsoft crap. Take the childish stuff elsewhere, and stick to the subject at hand.

I think it's worth noting that NO shipping browser is fully CSS2.0 compliant or passes the ACID2 test, including Firefox and Safari.

I still use IE. I also have Firefox installed, and I use it at times. But for the most part I use IE and I have had absolutely no problems with it. And for the 90% of web users out there, IE is not a problem. It works, and that's all they care about. I was even using IE7 Beta for the last week, but a problem came up with opening it yesterday so I uninstalled it. But that was a great looking program with some nice new features. Boycotting Microsoft won't work, sorry.

Paul's now officially a Mac loving Asshat. Bye Paul. No more links for you.

TO: "Normally I don't jump on the 'bash MS' bandwagon - I usually attempt to view any issue" A website *can* be 100 % standards compliant and be useable by Internet Explorer - it's called testing. Just make sure that any part of the standard that IE doesn't meet doesn't get used. You don't have to leave the web standards to do that. You thereby encourage everyone, including Microsoft, to be standards compliant. But these websites use *non-standard* HTML and code - this is clearly not Microsoft's fault. They could have used standards HTML but didn't. Yes, they may not have been able to use every current feature of the standard - but they don't have to *leave* the standard to use non-compliant html and code [and they often do so just for gimick's sake]. But they CHOOSE to leave the standard entirely of their own volition - this is CLEARLY not Microsoft's fault at all. So if a website isn't HTML 4 safe - don't blame Microsoft - it's not their doing.

This article had just to mutch text. Did not read all. Learn to write dude.

TO: "A website *can* be 100 % standards compliant and be useable by Internet Explorer - it's called testing." After I wrote my comment, I suspected someone would respond with this argument. Yes, there are multiple existing sets of 100% standards-compliant code that display just fine and dandy in IE. However, IE still doesn't fully support CSS 1.0. That has been around so long I don't even know when it was ratified. Most people have been surfing the web for 10 years or less (certain techies obviously longer), and IE has not significantly changed in nearly 4 (some, though not me, would argue 5 or 6) years. Numerous new standards and new versions of standards have been ratified in that time, which is a mighty significant chunk of the web surfing era. If I'm designing a website, I need it to be competetive with what's out there in order to grab attention. If I'm paid to do this, I need to attract people to my product, or companies are no longer going to pay me to design for them. This means using the latest and greatest features to offer something to visitors that other sites don't. I'm not going to design sites using 4 and 5 year old technology and keep my family fed. So, where does that leave us? Using hacks galore to get some of these new features to work in IE, because a large part of the audience I'm trying to reach is using IE. And as for the notion that 'these websites use *non-standard* HTML and code' - well, if a site is full of bad code, and it renders perfectly in IE, whose fault is that? I say the blame is shared. Microsoft is encouraging crappy coding practices, and with massive market share comes a different set of responsibilities. That includes making sure IE doesn't render crappy code, allowing a significant portion of served pages on the web to turn into a giant cluster #$%*. I understand perfectly the point that bad code should be blamed on the author. But I don't think that's where the blame stops in this case.

"Internet Explorer is a cancer of the web." "OS X is simply better than Windows. Especially for power users." "Longhorn is a trainwreck." Are you guys sure this is a pro-Windows site? :)

Mr. Thurrot - A week ago I would've completely agreed with you. But I have since read the post on IEBlog, announcing that IE7 will in fact comply with all the relevant standards =)

Microsoft will never allow IE to support web standards, because doing so would remove reliance on Windows. Web standards make Windows obsolete as a monopoly platform. You guys using IE, buying X-Boxes, and upgrading to OS-X-ripoff-Windows-Vista are just propping up a pointless monopoly that has held computing back for five years. Windows has altered history itself by making computing less advanced than it should be and already is in OS X. And IE has altered history itself by making the web look outdated when it should be looking much better than it does, with advanced CSS standards allowing for incredible web apps. These histories are altered by a forced monopoly through illegal OEM coercion, payoffs, and more. No wonder Apple's sales are SKYROCKETING.

The PC world is devoid of innovation or imagination. Is it any wonder PC users are clueless morons? It's only because of Apple's original iMac that you guys have USB ports on your computers. Steve Jobs may as well stop by your house and say "You're welcome." Next year, they're going to officially kill off the 1982-era BIOS you guys are all using and replace it with EFI. Expect PC makers, once again, to chase Apple's tail. I sure am glad to be using computers made by the original innovators and not the lame copiers. Have fun with Windows Vista in 2007, getting the OS X Tiger features I had back in March.

So we should only use ACID two compliant browsers? That rules out firefox, opera, safari. Exactly what am I supposed to surf with? Security? Ah yes, because firefox/mozilla hasn't had any security problems at all has it? Oh. Oh dear. Are you sure you understand what the standards are?

The PC world is devoid of innovation or imagination. Bwhahaha! Up until a year and a half ago Apple had the same damn boring line. It takes a free OS that many people have worked hard on for many years. Spend a good amount of time copying the lastest and greatest UI elements from XIAMAN and the other Linux ilk, and yes Windows XP. And now Apple is the inovator? Who had to adopt "OPEN" hardware standards to survive? Who is moving INTO the WINTEL PC space? Dare I say Apple, so is is the leader? I would say a sorry arsed mere follower! Buh Bye

Paul Thurrott and many others just do not realize that computing industry is not about making pretty web-pages... Example: a company next door just finished deployment of a new automated product test and measurements line, which took them several years and quite a few millions of dollars. Windows, IE, ActiveX and a lot of third-party code are integral parts of this system - get the idea? Those are customers Microsoft really cares about, and those customers have a say in what features IE7 (and other products for that matter) should have. And by the way - they installed Firefox for the frontdesk receptionist there, too.

My advice here is even simplier...and much more fun...boycott Paul Thorrott...he is a cancer on the web and must be stopped.

pfuuh , what a statement , but its true . i havn't used ie for years now , and not a problem at all .

Google browser will be the answer.

"NUFF SAID: STOP THE ROTT" You agree with paul, yet you rated his article a 1. Logic=? "This article had just to mutch text. Did not read all. Learn to write dude." Don't be lazy. If you read through the entire article, you'll pick up stuff you might have missed.

"But these websites use *non-standard* HTML and code - this is clearly not Microsoft's fault. " - You are missing the point, they use NON STANDARD because that is the only think IE 5-6 will render properly. "Testing" - This is just not economically feasible sometimes; it is ridiculous how much testing has to be done just so that IE will display a web site properly. Why can't the developer simply know how to do something and write that code. Does an engineer have to test the laws of physics or can he/she just worry about the structure being created. Web development life cycle: 1) Create a standards compliant web site 2) Hack it so it displays properly in IE6 (why should we have to do this? No one wants to have to pay for this) And the whole excuse that IE has to conform to legacy code is pure BS. That’s why we have doctypes; legacy applications can be rendered in legacy mode. I should be able to tell IE that my site is standard compliant and it should display it as such without resorting to any IE specific hacks.

"Thanks Paul, more ammo against the M$ Fanatics!!!" You need Paul to tell you that stuff to begin with? Are you really THAT low on resources? "This article had just to mutch text. Did not read all. Learn to write dude." Lol, 'dude'. I learned "mutch" from your sentence. ROFL.

"My advice here is even simplier...and much more fun...boycott Paul Thorrott...he is a cancer on the web and must be stopped." I agree. For a Windows News site, Paul shure is pushing his own slanted agenda. How long till we see a penguin logo and the Firefox logo on the website... Or better yet, find that we can't browse this site unless were using firefox.

I don't think Paul understands what he's talking about. I'm not aware of any browsers that pass the Acid2 test at this point (Firefox included). By Paul's logic, I guess we should boycott web browsing entirely.

"My advice here is even simplier...and much more fun...boycott Paul Thorrott...he is a cancer on the web and must be stopped." I was going to say the exact same thing :) Where does Paul Thurrott get all this ideas from? Stroke of genius, I tell you!

Well, for all the hot air, it seems as if Microsoft attempting to move much closer to standards compliance with IE7.

Boycott this idiot Paul

I took the Acid2 test on FireFox 1.0.6 and it failed the test miserably, so what are people ranting and raving about IE not being compliant with this test.

So far it seems that there is no browser out there with 100 % compliance to web "standards". I think we are on HTML 4.x now, right? That's a new "standard" for about every 3.x years. But it is much more complicated than that. To be 100 % WC3 compliant your little browser and related software would have to perfectly support at least all of: xhtml, css, svg, smil, cdf, xforms, mathml, inkml, xhtml basic, mobile svg, sml mobile xforms basic, cc/pp, cdf, voicexml, srgs, ssml, ccxml, emma, soap, xop, wsdl, wsdl, ws-cdl, addressing, owl, skos, p3p, appel, xml sig, sml enc, xkms, xml, namespaces, schemas, x-query/xpath, xslt, dom, xpointer, sparql, xml infoset, rdf graph, web archtectural principles, uri/iri, http etc. And to add fun to the mix these are ever changing [at least so far] "standards" ..

I completely agree with this article. Internet Explorer is by far the worst browser out there, and by far one of the least standards compliant. Firefox all the way!

"boycott Paul Thorrott" Who is Paul "Thorrott"? And why should I boycott him? Paul got this one absolutely right. *Applause*

Stating that ACID2 compliance is crusial clearly show you don't really know anything about web development. Sure, standards-support in IE is more than welcome, but most of the ACID2 does not test any real world need.

Mozilla Firefox 1.0.6 doesn't pass acid2 either, I think you're definately jumping the gun here.

I'm going to pout until they give in. http://www.fotodaze.com/view.php?view=1680

I like firefox and promote it heavily. But I will never switch from IE. Why? IE is a file manager. You can type a path to a directory in IE or a URL in Explorer and it will load it. I need to type directory paths, and to switch back and forth between file manager an Web browser. I will never use a Web browser that isn't a file manager.

It is amazing to see how many end-user only types sit here an spout off about why it doesn't make a difference. Well, to you it doesn't, so frankly, STFU!!!! Your opinion doesn't mean a damn thing. This discussion is for developers and people that have a clue as to how the web works. Microsoft has totally broken the idea of the Internet here. The Internet IS to be standards compliant. It is to be OS and application neutral. It was until MS decided they needed to kill Netscape. Have you ever written a complex website? Have you ever tried to setup ecommerce? It's a f***ing nightmare. Why? Because MS screwed the pooch on standards. You support them, or the rest of the world, doing both is like trying to change the orbit of the moon. And shouldn't be, and the Internet was designed so it didn't have to be. The web belongs to us not MS.

"I think it's worth noting that NO shipping browser is fully CSS2.0 compliant or passes the ACID2 test, including Firefox and Safari." Firefox does a _much_ better job at at acid2 than IE and Safari does pass the acid2 test on cvs, take your fud somewhere else. The necessary code to pass the test might not be shipping yet but it is a longgg way ahead than IE's mediocre support for css. ref: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/2005_04.html#008042

I'm a professional web developer and I certainly won't make any effort to support IE any more than I do any non-CSS non-Javascript browser. It's a shame that IE users are really missing out on the experience that users of other browsers are getting. Switch to Firefox, Opera, or Safari and you'll enjoy a much better web experience. I don't have the time to invest in a broken unreliable platform. I can't even properly tweak code to IE because the bugs are constantly changing. It's just not worth that kind of effort to me when many better solutions exist.

Last time I checked, FireFox fails the Acid2 test miserably. Hang on, I'll check again... Yep, Acid2 is horribly borked on FireFox. As far as security goes, well FireFox hasn't exactly been found to be secure, either. How many "critical security updates" have we had in FireFox in the last few months? Security research firms still have several vulnerabilities listed for the browser. Not saying IE is a bastion of security, but let's not assume FireFox is, just because it's not IE.

"I will never use a Web browser that isn't a file manager." And I will never drive a car that doesn't walk my dog.

"I will never use a Web browser that isn't a file manager." Yes! it has to be an instant messenger too, and a media player, and have email and usenet in it. Windows/IE Does a dozen different things, none of them well.

Um, hate to break it to "file manager browser" boy up top, but Firefox can be used in a similar manner. I know I can go to /home/user/ and have it display my files in an FTP style view.

Firefox manages to render standards correctly and still offer backwards support. How hard could it be for Microsoft to do the same with IE? Heck, they're even allowed to use the same layout engine that Firefox does if they want to and just put their extra tools and UI on top of that. Why do they keep trying to work with an ancient layout engine that is hopeless for supporting modern standards? In the end that is really what killed the Netscape browser.. who also was once #1.

I think the real answer is that IE needs to rewritten from the ground up in .NET. Also, it needs to break all those crappy existing apps, like the ones that need ActiveX controls. That needs to be removed altogether.

I guess IE7 will be enough of a train wreck if Vista doesn't end up being one.

Yes! Boycott it! And if your a webdeveloper, dont cater your sites to IE. Force users to make the switch.

Gee, so many people sit here and say, well, it isn't Microsoft's fault that these sites aren't compliant. For a matter of fact, you are dead wrong, it IS their fault. And here is why, they have held onto an over 90% market share of browsers for some time. In doing so, they pushed their technologies, and developers have used that technology. I don't fully blame the developers, but they should have been still writing for standards and ignoring Microsoft's proprietary stuff. But, that would have landed most of them out of work. They were writing for what people were using. People either don't know that there were other browsers out there, (most of them), and the rest, just got driven off of the alternatives by lazy developers, that quit writing MS version, and standards versions of their sites. Again, I can't completely fault developers for not wanting to create a site twice. Microsoft using its monopoly of browsers DID create this situation.

It is funny that web programmers have to worry about what platform the user is on... Have me moved on from the C preprocessor yet? Paul is simply right. MS is holding back the potential of the web and of web programmers more than any other force out there, so why put up with them? Are web programmers developers or IE testers? Which do you spend more of your time doing?

I have been boycotting IE in place of Firefox.

Yes. I've boycotted IE completely for at least two years now, and I've almost never come across a site Firefox can't handle anyways... I agree with this reason for boycotting, but my main reason is simply that my browsing experience is so much better - IE is as much a cancer simply because it is so unusable.

For all of you people still trying to make a security argument on Firefox vs IE. Last time I checked secunia, they had 23 FF listings. They have 84 for IE. Now, who is more secure again? On ACID2, it is a newer test, and it is meant to push all browser back to standards compliance, and it is working.

Everytime someone logs on with IE, we are now going to be pushing Firefox with a 50px bar across all of our sites. This is not bandwagon hate against Microsoft; but rather we believe that our visitors deserve the best possible experience, and IE's lack of CSS support is not delivering that.

Missing the point. IE *is* the standard, not W3C documents.

I fail to understand how seemingly intelligent people become so distored by misinformation that they lose any sense they might have had. Paul seems to think the world is coming to an end because the IE development team does not intend Acid2 compliancy, however he seems to overlook that even the "mythical" FireFox, Opera, or the largest majority of other www clients do not fully comply with this test either. Whats worse, Acid2 itself is non-compliant... it is purposely crafted invalid CSS to test against user agent error handling... So in essence, your complaining about compliancy problems on a non-compliant document. Hopefully this Acid2 "fad" will fade away in the near future, bringing people back to their senses... but until then we have to deal with foolish comments by people who have no ideal what they are talking about.

Just a niggling little detail, because I agree with the push to leave IE behind, but Firefox doesn't pass Acid2, either. I'm using 1.0.6 on Windows 2000 and it doesn't render the test correctly.

It seems to me that one of the biggest beefs Paul's expressing is not fully passing the Acid2 test. Chris Wilson in the IE blog post specifically quotes from the Acid2 Test Guide where it states that Acid2 is NOT a compliance test and "does not guarantee conformance with any specification" - a point that's coveniently skipped in this article. Basically, Chris says the IE team is shooting to deal with full complaince with CSS 2(.1) and in doing so will try to deal with as much of the Acid2 test as possible - just not using that test as an end goal since the test deals with more than just standards compliance. It should also be mentioned that Firefox doesn't pass the Acid2 test either . . . (Closer, yes - but Paul's advocating BOYCOTT for anything less than PERFECT compliance.)

Safari's WebKit is the only renderer to pass Acid2. Once again, Apple is kicking Microsoft's butt and leaving them far behind, and the Windows ship are happy to eat our dust.

I CAN'T BELIEVE SOME OF YOU DON'T SEE HOW BAD IE IS. Sorry, I just thought that needed to get through to some of you. I won't bash Windows, it's not as bad as people think... But IE has so many rendering errors it's not even funny. I develop web pages and have to STUDY IE ERRORS to get websites to render properly. An especially accurate, comprehensive reference to IE's rendering errors is http://positioniseverything.net/explorer.html, "Explorer Exposed". It's well known among web developers. You should read it if you think IE is all that. And then if you still have your head shoved up...well just read it. Then read http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2005/07/28/ie7_css_upda/ this review of IE7. It's written, again, from a web developers point of view. Out of those 15 or so categories of CSS errors in IE, IE7 only fixed 3 of them! These bugs have been around for years! Finally, MS came through on their promise to support PNG-24 images with real transparency. No more having to use crappy 256 color GIFs just because 85% of the web is too stupid to use something besides IE. That much I can be thankful for. These "extensions" that some of you have mentioned about being "4 or 5 years ahead" of other browsers? What, do you mean colored scrollbars? Custom cursors? The only things IE can do that other browsers can't are either cheesy (cursors, scrollbars), buggy (guillotine bug, pages flickering when using IE's proprietary alpha filters), or insecure (ActiveX). So thank you Microsoft for at least making some progress. Those 3 bug fixes and especially PNG support will help me develop better pages. Now take care of the rest. Seriously, a company as big as Microsoft...they've accomplished about 1/10th of what I'd expect from them. I won't bash their OS. They've done a lot to secure it recently, and Vista should have some good improvements. Tiger isn't as great as all the hype/buzz around it anyway. Safari isn't great either. But MS, your browser is the worst in existence.

Come on people, Have you even LOOKED at the things Microsoft says they will fix? It covers 90+% of the cross browser compability issues that web developers face. *THIS IS A GOOD THING*. Also, it's a good thing that Microsoft is being open and Honest about what they will and will not do. And here you want to **** in their wheaties because they honestly said they couldn't make full compliance in their current timeline? Grow up people. Even if MS is 100% dedicated to standards compliance (which frankly, I think they're pretty close to that) it will take YEARS for them to achieve it. Do you really think we should be waiting years for them to release the next version of IE? Or would you rather have a compromise release that does it's best to address the most serious issues? They're working on the problems. They're publicly talking about what they intend to do. They're taking comments and feedback from people on what's important. How is any of this BAD?????

"My advice here is simple: Boycott Internet Explorer." Hell yeah.

Lee Iacocca once said "lead, follow or get out of the way". Microsoft is not a leader in Web browsing technology. It has no plans to support XHTML so it doesn't even follow in the footsteps of Firefox or Opera. So it must get out of the way!

Microsoft has never had a 'monopoly' of browsers. Anyone could choose to use any number of browsers since the earlier nineties, Netsape, Mozilla, Opera, Safari, Mosaic, Internet Explorer to name just a few and so on. Well into the nineties, Netscape was #1. People were WELL AWARE of the standards being compiled at W3C but chose to ignore them preferring to use the 'in house' type enhancements available on IE and even Netscape for their decidely public websites. You can't blame Microsoft for that .. it's people who greedily ignored the standards who are responsible. Everyone wanted cool chrome and were willing to leave the standards. Look at Shockwave flash. Some sites won't let you past the first page if you do not have Flash because there's no alternative for those without it. If you don't have flash, you don't see the website - you blame Microsoft for that !!!? Yet is is now known that Flash is being used as a spyware tracking technology and some people don't use it. They are blocked out of these non-standard websites. It's not Microsoft's fault. It's greedy website designers who want their site to be 'special'.

You should have thought a bit more before posting your article for the following reasons: 1. Your article is based off of an IE Beta, or talk about a future IE that has yet to be released. 2. No major browser fully passes the Acid check, so what's the point in slamming just IE here? I think every company is working towards this goal somewhere down the line. 3. Boycotting will not solve any problems. Millions of users will still use IE because it's easy for them to access right from the OS. 4. Microsoft is a company trying to make money, just like anyone else. Would you rather wait ANOTHER year for IE 7 so they can try and keep up with any new standards that would be released then? To them, the time to get something out is now. No company can make a perfect product.

One of the best post (apart from the SuperSite reviews) I've read from you in a while. Microsoft clearly put itself into a corner creating incompatible standards which are full of security holes. The team behind IE7, the browser which is meant to fix it, clearly saw standards compliance as a non-issue -- being the first truly new release in four years, it is disastrous to see that IE looks different, but works the same. Still, I wouldn't go as far as to boycott IE though - lets see Beta 2 first.

One of the best post (apart from the SuperSite reviews) I've read from you in a while. Microsoft clearly put itself into a corner creating incompatible standards which are full of security holes. The team behind IE7, the browser which is meant to fix it, clearly saw standards compliance as a non-issue -- being the first truly new release in four years, it is disastrous to see that IE looks different, but works the same. Still, I wouldn't go as far as to boycott IE though - lets see Beta 2 first.

Any web developer that still uses a client browser check should be fired on the spot. If it breaks IE, it will cause more people to opt for a good browser (Firefox, Safari). Just because they use their monopoly to get most people to use IE doesn't make it right.

*sigh* a) ACID2 is not a standards compliance test - "Acid2 does not guarantee conformance with any specification" b) No current web browser is 100% CSS2 compliant

Safari's Webkit isn't publicly available yet, and there's no timeline of when it WILL be. For all we know, it could be another year before we see the Acid2 stuff. Further, Safari has tons of other problems relating to it's CSS compliance. It's great that Safari will pass Acid2 (whenever they get around to releasing it), but that's only because JUST the Acid2 flaws were addressed. Acid2 doesn't mean you're 100% compliant. All it means is that you managed to pass a subset of tests, many of which are of little use in real world situations.

i've developed some large, well known websites. i'll do everything i can to boycott IE7 until acid2 is supported. the web could be so much cooler. microsoft IE has been holding back a lot of great applications. the cutting-edge apps that do make it are only possible via very long cross browser development and testing cycles. an IE7 boycott would put the future of the web in the hands of the people who build it. count me in.

Yesterday IE, tomorrow Firefox.

Actually, I'm fairly certain that Konqueror renders Acid2 korrectly (;)) along with the developer build of Safari. Firefox is getting there, Opera is getting there, IE has given up.

http://webkit.opendarwin.org/

Since when has Microsoft had an monopoly of browsers: http://browsers.evolt.org/

What you need to realize about standards isn't for you the average user, but more so for the web developers. You need to realize that we waste much of our time and same with IT departments around the world that Microsoft is costing us more and more time. This time is money. I would count the loss in money easily in the hundred millions maybe more. I find I can design a template and everything around it for standards compatibile browsers in around an hour, the next 30 minutes are fixing compatibility issues with IE then checking standards compliant browser, fixing again to make sure that all code is still standards compliant but completely hacked up looking. For me this is all I have to add. I do not mind Microsoft as a company but when they put limitations on my turf I get angry. And you think IE is so nice... I can show you a CSS bug and documents from an email with a Microsoft IE Security guy that claims if a process dies in IE from CSS that there is no problem and that they will probably not fix it.

Way back in 2001 when IE6 came out, it lead in meeting standards over all other browsers, and promptly put them to death till firefox saved us all from the monopoly. Personally, I love firefox, but it's javascript rendering engine is TERRIBLE. Safari has even more JS problems, and a good large number of sites fail in it due to its css deficiencies. And who really cares about Opera, the browser that pretends to be IE. If you develop web applications, Firefox is finally supporting basic WYSIWYG editing, Safari fails, and IE 6 still rules in what it allows a web developer to do. I want to see a basic list of CSS2 compatibilities and PNG support in IE7, but even more I'd like Safari and Firefox to catch up in non-CSS related ways to IE circa 2001. People love picking on the Vole, and there are good reasons to, but Firefox and gang are still not up to the task of replacing IE yet -- even IE6

A boycott is only effective in a competitive marketplace. The proof that Microsoft is a monopoly is that Windows is virtually a sellers' market. The balance of power between Microsoft and its customers is overwhelmingly on Microsoft's side. Up to a point, it simply doesn't matter how bad IE7 is. An IT manager and decision-maker could very well decide very rationally that the pain of IE7 is lower than the pain of departing from the Microsoft fold. The courts found that Microsoft is, in fact, a monopoly. That's what being a monopoly means. The government could have taken effective enforcement action against Microsoft, but elected not to do so. So, enjoy your IE7, because boycotting it is not going to have any noticeable effect.

The fact is that all Microsoft products are EVIL and should NEVER be used for any purpose. Internet Explorer, of course, is one of the worst examples of this. I encourage everyone to switch to a Free operating system like GNU/Linux.

I agree. I do not use IE. People should build their sites to web standards and then say that their site requires a standards-compliant browser. Most of these sites would work in IE but just wouldn't look as good. This is much better than all the sites out there that require IE and don't work at all if you are not using IE.

ACID 2 test isn't relevant. IE can't even handle CSS1 without rendering errors. Fix those, then we can have every 4th person mention it like a broken record. IE isn't even in the same league as other browsers.

Paul, FYI, show me a browser that passes Acid2. I'll wait.

Lee Iacocca once said "lead, follow or get out of the way". MS is not a leader in Web browsing technology. It has no plans to support XHTML so it doesn't even follow. So it must get out of the way.

Seems like you have become yet another, let me bash MS and get a link on slashdot and make money author.... 1) They are adding more support. 2) No browser out there supports ACID2. (ya ya Safari internal build, but i cant use it) 3) ACID 2 includes non standard CSS elements, that web devs would LIKE to have. 4) I know there are wonderful CSS things out there, but ever thought why CSS 2.1 is comming out, and why they removed half the crap in CSS 2. Personally I believe they are adding enough html standard support this revision, and hopefully do more in the future. Think before you write

From the Acid2 test: "Acid2 does not guarantee conformance with any specification." You're an idiot. Nice way to bring traffic to your site with such a ridiculous article. Stop wasting everyone's time. Haven't you noticed THAT IT DOESN'T WORK ON ANY BROWSER?!

Random hits from various posts. A WEB BROWSER shouldn't be a file manager and people wonder why IE is so full of holes anything gets through it so they have 100's of mal/spy/trojanware on their systems? Idiot in front of screen = compromised system. Apple better? Please anyone not a apple zealot can see all their recent moves are stick the finger in the air and see which way it's blowing and we'll dump a piece of overpriced and under performing appliance into that market segment. Enjoy your crappy intel inside macs next year since intel found a moron in Jobs to dump their surplus on. No go drink your kool-aid like a good user.

As a web developer myself, I've been stymied by Microsoft's unwillingness to update IE to support even current standards. The box model, for example, has been a problem for /years/ and they have stated that they did it the right way - when no other browser seems to agree. The biggest problem with the IE7 announcement seems to be that they've effectively stated they will never comply with Acid2. Safari 2.0 and Konqueror/KHTML CVS both not only comply, but pass Acid2 with flying colors. Firefox is expected to come very close to passing Acid2 with the release of the new Gecko engine in Firefox 1.1. Opera has already made the commitment to pass Acid2 - and challenged Microsoft to do the same. CSS1 is passe these days. It offers nothing interesting. And IE6 doesn't even support it fully. It's wonderful that IE7 will finally support this rather ancient technology correctly, but why not go the extra step? CSS2 has been ratified and is Recommended as of 12-May-1998, with CSS2.1 a Candidate for Recommendation. There remains only one issue with CSS2.1, which is expected to be cleared soon. So why not even support CSS2? Why has it taken *NINE YEARS* to support one standard, and *SEVEN YEARS* to support another? Why, in God's name, is Microsoft deliberately holding back the web? I want my CSS3, and Microsoft is keeping me from ever seeing it. Let the boycott begin!

Don't be silly. Saying stuff like "boycott it" just makes you look ignorant. Have you forgotten that 95% of Windows users will just get it from Windows Update and not think twice? Also, if Microsoft is true to form, it will be a required upgrade for security reasons. You don't have to like what Microsoft is doing, but if you feel like you can somehow affect it, I feel sorry for you.

I hate to break it to ya all, but there are other browsers (some mentioned in the article itself) that do NOT pass Acid2 either. So, whatchagonna do? Drop all browser support? I think not. Acid2 is not a compliance check worth worrying about. Instead, go with W3's tests. Make IE7 fully compliant with all current and real standards, and tell the Acid2 folks to jump in a creek.

I have developed many pages in my years as web developer. I used to have to create special code to take care of the flaws in Netscape, but it has all changed now. When writing a standards compliant page today (which is really a lot faster and easier to do, cheaper to maintain as well) I have to look up IE specific bugs and learn how to treat them. Firefox simple renders the code as it's supposed to. Take the double margin bug in IE on floated elements for example. Easy bug to work around when you know how, but really that shouldn't be needed. Why on earth would a margin become doubled? Microsofts approach to IE seems to be more of an ongoing patching and adding new quirks to fix a broken design. I agree with the author of the article, until Microsoft sets up a goal to reach full compliance and will actively work towards that goal IE should be boycotted.

Oh boy. As a web developer yourself, you should probably know that CSS3 is still undergoing changes and any browser that supports CSS3 today is in danger of creating YET ANOTHER non-standard browser that needs to be supported. No browser should support CSS3 until it is ratified. That doesn't mean you can't do things like Mozilla has done, implement features but add them to the Mozilla namespace (ie -moz features, but implementing CSS3 today is foolish and anyone that suggests doing it hasn't really thought it through. CSS2.1 is *NOT* in Candidate for Recommendation. It has been "demoted" back to Working draft and is again undergoing change. This should be a caution to anyone that thinks CR status is "set in stone". It's not. Again, implementing CSS2.1 at this stage is premature and only going to make another non-standard browser when CSS2.1 finally does get ratified. CSS2.0 support is incomplete on all browsers. That's one of the reasons for CSS2.1. Oh, and MS hasn't said they never intend to pass Acid2. They said that IE7 will not pass Acid2. That doesn't mean that IE7.5 or whatever the next version is won't.

Interesting approach. Taste a cow then say not to eat any steak. I wait the next beta and the final.

Me too

Maybe you should have read the IE blog again before posting this - MS are shooting for CSS 2.1 Compliance in IE7. Your article is completely out of line, as it seems that surprisingly MS are doing the right thing this time.

hmmm If IE is the most common used browswer on the plantet...does it not actually set the "standard"? Suck it up and code for IE - it's what your customers/readers are using!

I have to say this. I've seen several people here calling IE "the most popular browser on the planet". It's not popular because it's a great browser. It's popular because it's already on the system and several proprietary packages use it for their base. SBC/Yahoo! DSL crap, AOL, and a few others I can think of. If OEMs actually bothered to give users a CHOICE with what browser to use (like my company does) then believe me, IE wouldn't be the most USED browser. It certainly isn't the most popular. I know this is playing with symantics, but get over it and use the English language properly. If that happened more often, we might very well not have so many ignorant people in the world. As far as compliance/boycotting IE, well, that's already happening. Firefox just shyof 18% of the browser share on the web. IE has dropped to almost 80%. Users aren't stupid, if someone with a clue tells them something they tend to listen. Problem here is that the average user has a friend who has just a hair bit more of a clue than they do. Usually what they say is wrong, or misguided and thus misleads the less than clued-in users.

"If a website doesn't meet web standards in how it is HTMLed and coded, is that Microsoft's fault?" Yes it is. There's two steps in webdevelopment. Step 1, create a proper site. Step 2, break it to work around the bugs in IE. Step 2 takes the longest. "When a company designs a website and CHOOSES a non-standard technology for that website, who's fault is that?" Well if they are using Microsoft development tools that stuff would automatically create broken html/css. What some people are misunderstanding here is that standard-conform technology needs to be broken to work on IE. Microsoft IS to blame for all the crappy coded websites around... "IE6 is reasonably standard compliant when the page specifies the strict HTML4.01 using the !DOCTYPE tag. If they improve the standard compliance even farther, why would we boycott it then?" Because they will only improve a little bit. Websites would take less development time, would work cross-platform (without additional hardwork) and consume less bandwidth if IE would meet standards. Most importantly, from a creative perspective we could just do a lot more than can be done right now with websites. If a group of volunteers at Mozilla can create a browser that is nearly standards compliant already, why wouldn't one of the biggest companies in the world be able to do the same? The problem is Microsoft will try to prevent innovation because it doesn't think it will benefit Microsoft. Maybe a boycot of IE would convince them innovation is in their best interest... "I think it's worth noting that NO shipping browser is fully CSS2.0 compliant or passes the ACID2 test, including Firefox and Safari." Just compare how Firefox and IE pass Acid2. The test results speak for themselves. The version of Safari in CVS does pass Acid2, so it will be ok in the next release.

"A website *can* be 100 % standards compliant and be useable by Internet Explorer - it's called testing. Just make sure that any part of the standard that IE doesn't meet doesn't get used." Would it be an idea to fix Internet Explorer, so it would work out of box? A bit like all other browsers? "I will never use a Web browser that isn't a file manager." Konqueror? "It's a shame that IE users are really missing out on the experience that users of other browsers are getting." Well IE is causing websites to not take advantage of css etc... So not only IE users are missing out... "Whats worse, Acid2 itself is non-compliant... it is purposely crafted invalid CSS to test against user agent error handling... " This is untrue, go check your facts... "Grow up people. Even if MS is 100% dedicated to standards compliance (which frankly, I think they're pretty close to that) it will take YEARS for them to achieve it." Why would it take such a big company years? Why would it take so much longer for Microsoft than for Mozilla, Khtml, Apple etc? "ACID 2 test isn't relevant." Well, if it wasn't for ACID 1 Internet Explorer wouldn't even have had the (partial and buggy) css1 support it now has... "Acid2 does not guarantee conformance with any specification." Well it does only check for a subset, so when you think about... IE isn't even conforming to a subset. If you check IE rendering ACID2 you will see it doesn't conform to anything at all.

I am happy that someone is taking the time to actually admitt some of the flaws of IE and Windows. Without the ability to addresses changes to the core architecture neither product can grow. It is somewhat ironic that Microsoft users and programmers are trying into blind obidence to system, much like a typical Mac user. This is not like us, we must be ashamed of ourselves, and redress the issues that need to be solved without the usually propapanda of blind lemmings.

Well all you people that equate personal computing with M$ products and standards deserve the shoddy software they choose to use. I mean if a lawyer gave you a copy of the M$ EULA (providing you read it) you'd refuse to sign it! M$ has always mangled computing standards, that is M$ inovation. They make their software so it is only compatable with M$ products. Just waait and see what you get when the next version of M$ Office comes out totally incompatable with open document standards. They just keep milking the turkey.

Isn't that what mod_rewrite is for?

I do agree totally your argument. From SouthAmerica, I really appreciatte your column sayng the truth about IE7, Francisco

<> This kind of comment is the problem. Can any one sit down and create MSIE specific content without buying the MS tool suite? NO I didn't think so. Therefore it is not a standard it is a cancer. Bu-bye

Isn't it stunning how much intellectual energy is wasted dealing with the crap Microsoft has spewed into the computing ecology? Imagine if MS never was, and all those developers were re-distributed across the computer engineering realm... working on standards compliant stuff? "The consumer hasn't been harmed?". Hardly. Microsoft's obvious, and stated (loudly and many times), goal is shareholder value. Until we refuse to accept their non-standard products - hitting them in the "shareholder-value", they will continue to pollute the compu-sphere for their direct economic gain.

Agreed. Let Microsoft burn in hell with IE and let's use other browsers instead.

I am a web developer and I have no problems with MSIEs standard compliance. Just some fine tuning to make things look the same in Firefox. What are the real life issues you are having that causes you to be so critical towards MSIE?

"I am a web developer and I have no problems with MSIEs standard compliance. Just some fine tuning to make things look the same in Firefox." The thing you do not realise is that Firefox is following a standard and will display your code in the manner in which it is meant to be displayed. This troll and its ilk, coding specifically to MSIE's flaws, are the problem, much more than the flaws in themselves. Without them, we could simply ignore IE until it went away.

I want to set straight some misconceptions that are likely to come up, like the following that already has: "If a website doesn't meet web standards in how it is HTMLed and coded, is that Microsoft's fault? It is up to the website owners to make sure that their public websites are coded to public standards. MSIE offers many technologies that as "extras", but thoses were really meant for "in house" use." It is Microsoft's fault that people can't use web standards. The rendering of the site is not up to the creators, but ultimately in the hands of the browser. Imagine a stereo that won't play a CD with more than 50 minutes of music on it - this is a defect in the stereo, not in the CD. Likewise, IE misses out on providing support for a lot of details in a lot of standards, and gets a lot of things wrong, too; this can't possibly be the fault of the web site. IE's "extras", if used solely "in house", as suggested, would be nice, but IE's extras are NOT used solely in house, but in fact on a lot of web sites and even a lot of advanced and important applications like online banks. Thusly, people can't use the browser of their choice, which is a huge set-back. Finally, something for the crackpots: This has nothing to do with hating Microsoft - it has to do with moving to the better browser. It's happened before when people moved from Netscape 4 to IE, and it'll probably happen again. /Jesper

I am a web developer myself and I spend far more time working around IE bugs (the broken box model being a biggie) and lack of support for standards that other browsers have suppored for year than I do actually creating the code. Who is this hurting? Well, for one, it's hurting my clients. They have to buy more of my time to get the same results. And saying "just code for IE" wouldn't help, either, since different versions of IE are broken in uniquely different ways. Microsoft doesn't want standards. Microsoft wants an IE-only Web. Their sole and exclusive goal is to increase their stock price for the benefit of people speculating on that price in the stock market. Since I'm not in that group of people, and I AM in the group of people who have to clean up the wreckage, I tend to disagree. Oh, and saying that IE is the "best" browser because it's used extensively is like saying that WordPad is the best word processor for the same reason. They're both used for exactly the same reason: they ship with Windows, and people like my elderly mother just don't buy or download new softare. (I installed Firefox and Thunderbird for her)

Paul Thorott..you nailed it! Microsoft needs to go the way of the old Roman empire. Its basic evolution...adapt and fit in with what is going on or stand alone and die. FireFox is the new standard. Everyday its user base grows, while IE's diminishes. 1) Its open source - very cool! 2) Its standards compliant 3) It has cool features and isn't an invader. BOYCOTT IE7 and go FIREFOX! For your sake and the sakes of us all.

Unless you're Microsoft, you don't make money even indirectly by promoting IE. If you do not conform to standards sufficient for other browsers to work, you are turning customers away. I know, because I've walked away from doing business because they wanted me to jump through hoops to use their e-commerce site. They not only insisted on IE, but IE on Windows. I've got an emulator but that's for cases when I *have* to use Windows. For a publicly traded firm, the board has a legal duty to its shareholders to maximize revenue. When they make decisions to turn away customers over as tangential an issue as their browser development platform, they can be excused if it's just a percent or two of dissenting browsers. Testing takes work. At a certain point, it starts getting to be bad business decision and shareholders will notice and past a further dip in IE market share, it's white collar crime. Why would anybody at the board level ever approve a web project that depends on MS maintaining a certain browser market in order for them to avoid personal fines and/or jail time? This is just absolutely insane.

I'm sorry but this is a pile of crap from you. There are no AVAILABLE release browsers that currently pass the Acid2 tests. A build of Safari that is not considered release quality currently passes it but who knows when that will be ready for release. I've used a mix of FF and IE for ages now (using IE for certain sites that don't display properly in FF due to IE specific stuff) and I'm tired of hearing people bash on MS due to standards stuff. Sure, they have been bad in the past but they are fixing it now. From reading the blog entry that you refer to it's obvious that they are not aiming to have Acid2 compliance for the IE 7 because they are concentrating on security.... which is a good thing in my opinion. And you say "IE isn't secure and isn't standards-compliant"... neither is ANY other browser... FF has had spades of security issues lately and all browsers that I know of have had security issues. Hence the IE team are concentrating on it and they seem to be doing excellent work. As for standards compliance, IE is one of the worst offenders here but once again, no currently live browser passes the Acid2 tests... therefore no live browser is standards compliant yet you pick on IE. Yes, IE has it's problems and yes it would be great if it passed the Acid2 tests, but I would much prefer MS to work hard on security for IE 7 and then concentrate on standards compliance for IE 7.1 or 7.5 or whatever comes shortly afterwards. And you did fail to mention that MS are working with the designers of the Acid2 tests to fix as many standards issues as they can given their priorities at the moment… see http://www.webstandards.org/buzz/archive/2005_07.html#a000539 Please, for once research what you are writing on and stop this dribble. FF is leading the way at the moment and long may it beat IE but I want a secure IE for the masses more then I want a standards compliant IE for web developers. Security FIRST, everything else SECOND!

You don't realise what the ACID test is. The ACID test does not check the compliance of the browser to the standards. The ACID test is all about invalid and buggy CSS. It checks if a browser handles *invalid* CSS rationally. A perfectly CSS compatible browser can fail on ACID. In other words, all that ACID checks is how many CSS bugs can your browser workaround. I would be very interrested to know how they even define the "correct" rendering on the ACID site. Since it's all invalid CSS. Don't take my word, go on the ACID site to read about the test, or check it against a CSS verifier.

Some people never learn: "Microsoft is now doing the right thing" Honest and Microsoft in the same sentence... .... Microsoft will never support standards but BREAK them. They want to kill the web as an aplication platform just to make you enslaved in windows OS only applications. Thats what they have been doing last 6 years, and thats also the reason IE evolution stopped. I'm sure we could have by now rich interface standard compiant web applications, that you could navigate through the net or execute on your own computer (whatever OS you had). Thats what M$ fears most, and it will work to this not happening.

What a moron. If the guy did his research, he'd realize that the IE team is addressing most of the major IE flaws that hinder web developers. Also, stating that MS didn't adhere to all the latest CSS standards is intentionally misleading; no browser is up to the very latest.

Remove Internet Explorer nLite:http://www.nliteos.com/nlite.html Vorck's method:http://www.vorck.com/remove-ie.html Before posting a comment that it's bad/you can't/whatever and making yourself look foolish, read: http://www.vorck.com/answers-ie.html#whatis

I have to agree as well. It is M$' fault that programmers have to hack their compliant code. As a programmer, I hate programming something special just for IE. I have HTML and CSS compliant code and then none of it gets displayed in IE. So I have to add a lot of extra code so that it works with both. Then, I'm not practicing good programming techniques. Like any thing you do, you want to do it right but IE makes web developers program ugly and inefficient code. BAN IE!!!!!!

A few points: - If you are not a developer you really don't understand what it takes to code sites b/c of this MS IE BS (you can steal that one). We're not mad at you (end users) for enjoying your IE experiences. We've gone through hell coding those sites in the most *** backwards ways for you to be happy. - On ACID 2. Wilson clearly states that they do intend to meet the ACID2 test and its not on their agenda. I'm sure the alternative browsers will strive to meet those standardsin time. THATS the DIFFERENCE. The alternative technologies will strive to innovate and meet standards while Microsoft will continue to do it "their way." The MS way is pretty dusty. - ON FLASH. Flash is a PLUGIN, not a browser. I don't think there are any STANDARDS for flash. If someone wants to develop a site that requires a plugin they have the freedom to do so. That has nothing to do with this article or arguement. I could create a site that requires a number of plugins. I know someone brought this up in response to a comment about MS having a monopoly on the web browser and OS used by most people. I agree. There are alternative operating systems and alternative browsers. The fact that alternative technology exists does not belittle the need for MS to be standards compliant. If 90% of the people in the world drove the equivalent of a 1998 Yugo, thats no reason for Yugos not be to compliant with the automotive standards of 2005. - While I'm happy to hear that MS is fixing a number of issues, I feel its LONG OVERDUE. In addition, I feel confident that they won't get it right. While some loyal MS users have hope, we developers have years of MS BS under our belts and , thus, have no reason to think IE7 will be the bundle of joy they claim it will. Finally - off topic - Who was the idiot that posted something about Apple taking a free OS that everyone used and stealing the latest UI from Linux and Xp and calling it OSX? WHOA. Know your history b4 u post comments.

I am quite frankly sick of the sites that will only work with Exploder. Most especially, when they are sites that I am required to use under the normal day to day commerce that I have with people such as my electric and phone company. Bad enough that this stuff continues to exist and put the web at risk without being forced into using it,

Actually, Acid2 is *not* just a test of errors. Nor is it a standards compliance test, at least not in the sense that passing Acid2 indicates compliance. It is a test of various aspects of web-related specifications which are not widely in use because of insufficient browser support. Some of those include error recovery. If the spec says error type X should be handled in one way, and the browser handles it differently, the browser is incorrect. As for how "correct" rendering is defined... There's a screenshot on the Acid2 info page that shows what it's supposed to look like. Read for yourself at http://webstandards.org/act/acid2/

Nice work Paul. You did a great job raising a stink to get attention without actually saying anything. IE7-B2 will not be out until the end of the yea and the IE7-Gold will not ship until sometime in 2006. You are an idiot/attention-whore for calling for a boycott now. Yet another reason to stop visiting the Windows IT Pro site. Jorgie

If feel bad for the MS IE developers. you know they are working on that sh*tty code from 5 years ago saying, can we just rewrite this? Like previous comments, it comes down to boardrooms, stocks, and other corporate bullsh*t. Face it MS doesn't care about you blind aunt.

I'm doing some webdesing and I'm writing 100% standart compilant. If you use a pure css2 design (meaning there's no real html left), you won't have real problems with broken standarts. I write the entire project for firefox and only have to adjust a few thing to make it work in ie. In case youre wondering why css2 layouts are rare, that's because no wysiwyg-editor for creating those exists. ok, what I ment to say: the css2 support in ie works wonderfull for me, but the HTML/XML suport in inaceptable

I have boycotted IE for some time now. IE is just a one manifestation of Microsoft's general approach to all of their products – buggy, proprietary software that ties into an investment that is difficult to get out of.

So, we should boycott IE because it doesn't pass the Acid2 test. Instead, we should use a browser like Firefox, Safari, Opera, or Konqueror, none of which pass the Acid2 test. Huh? Ugh. Methinks Paul Thurrot is still upset at Microsoft for making him take down his WinHEC Longhorn screens.

Cant believe that you are recomending all users should stop using ie... You say use Firefox as an alternative but in the past 6 month more vunerabilities have been found with that than ie... And just how is a corporate IT admin suppose to patch something like that... oh way year re-deploy the entire browser... So far as IE being a cancer well 90% of the world uses it and the internet is as strong as ever at the moment...

IT'S OFFICIAL--WINDOWS ONLY GOOD FOR VIDEOGAMES AND WEB-SURFING Microsoft's own studies in developing Longhorn showed that the #1 and #2 uses of Windows were, respectively, browsing the web and playing games. For real computing, using a Mac. #1 - 33% of Windows usage is browsing the web #2 - 18% of Windows usage is game-playing #3 and #4 - Doing e-mail and using the shell were tied at 9% Windows--For playing videogames, like The Sims. Macs--for getting real work done. No wonder Apple's sales are skyrocketing and their stock price is more than double Microsoft's.

'So, we should boycott IE because it doesn't pass the Acid2 test. Instead, we should use a browser like Firefox, Safari, Opera, or Konqueror, none of which pass the Acid2 test. Huh?" Uh, dumbass? webkit.opendarwin.org is where you can get WebKit, used in Safari. It passed Acid2 months ago and was the first to do it. Once again, Apple is leading the computing world while everyone else desperately tries to catch up in their cloud of dust.

The defacto standard is "however Microsoft does it." There is no point in asking a company with over 90% market share to be more "standards compliant." The W3C is almost as big a joke as the UN.

Yeah, Windows is only good for playing video games, sure *rolls eyes* I especially liked the post where someone said that MS has made no innovations, and if they did, it was on the coat-tails of Apple. Um, excuse me, but perhaps you're not aware of the .Net platform and the enormous amount of innovation that went into *that*. WinFS is the next generation filesystem which is set to outperform UFS and EXT (which your beloved Macs run on; UFS is a BSD partition). And if you're still thinking, "yeah, .net, what a piece of Microsoft crap" after reading this, perhaps you should go speak to your local software engineer and find out just how next generation the .Net platform really is. I hate Mac zealots. Anyone with half a brain can admit Mac's superiority on certain levels, but it's nowhere near as powerful and feature-filled as Windows. Ugh.

Boycott IE? Sure, why not... let me know how that turns out for you! Why don't you start an online petition while you're at it? Losers!

If IE accounts for over 80% of website usage, isn't IE the standard? You can spout off about how some organization publishes the "standard", but at the end of the day, if most don't use it, it's not worth much. I've been a web developer for over 10 years now and would like to see security fixed first. Personally I don't overly care about CSS to the extent some people seem too. A vast majority of sites use it in a fairly limited capacity (as compared to the standard) to be complaint to ALL browsers. The rest of the functionality for the UI itself likely comes from flash. As long as they get the security right in IE7, FF will start to shrink. (and yes I use FF just because of security and tabs)

Uh, Dumbass? If the end users aren't using that Webkit, what does it matter if web developers are? You can't make use of it if your users aren't.

A boycott is the best solution. I have been developing websites for corporations and government departments for years and they have all had in place a policy of making sure their sites have been compliant with W3C guidelines (especially accessibility). Microsoft has always been aware of what they were doing, it's a practice born out of the early days of browser wars where browsers would try to do add features to the HTML set that only work on their own browser and so entice people to only use that browser. By refusing to make IE fully standards compliant they perpetuate sloppy website practices and so the uninformed people out there who try another browser and see their favorite websites suddenly look wrong then they go back to using IE. The problem for web developers has been to design sites that take account of the bugs and problems and use workarounds to make a site look the way the client wants in IE, in doing so however this often means the work arounds cause problems in other browsers. The bottom line is once ALL browsers function the same and support the same standards to the same level only then will their be a level playing field for users to decide on a browser that they like. It will also mean much less hassle for developers trying to adhere to web standards AND retain the look & functionality within IE (not always an easy task). The web is full of poorly made websites as is it, and Microsoft's continuing to deliberately not support full standards (only partially supporting them instead) just helps to clutter the web. A clean web starts with clean sites viewable in clean browsers. Microsoft its time for you to grab a broom.

IE7 is a train wreck and probably the worst part of Vista we've seen so far. The universal web standards are far better designed than Microsoft's own rulesets, and there is no good reason they shouldn't comply with them.

You don't have to boycot IE. You just have to let Micro$oft think (euhh, they already do and have stated so in the past) that THEY are the ones that set (ALL) standards.

I believe instead of trying to organize the masses into boycotting, we should add standards checking to search engines. Imagine the tides of change that would come out of Google increasing a sitess rankings for using web standards. Maybe even make it higher for supporting accessibility standards. Just imagine: all of the sudden standards compliance would be getting budgeted by marketing. And what could Microsoft do about it? They claim they have to support backwards-compatibility. Let's bring compatibility to their door step.

"So, we should boycott IE because it doesn't pass the Acid2 test. Instead, we should use a browser like Firefox, Safari, Opera, or Konqueror, none of which pass the Acid2 test. Huh?" --------------------- Wrong, Safari passed the Acid2 test. You people need to get your facts straight. Safari was the first web browser to pass the Acid2 test, as someone already stated above as well. Web standards are important. A browser is not a web standard, IE is not a web standard. The languages which browsers understand to display web content such as HTML, Java, and CSS are web standards. They are also the tools which developer's use to create and invent web sites and content. In the world wide web development scheme of things today, there are so many more scripts and web development technologies which exceed the simple HTML, Java, and CSS support on Internet Explorer. Other browsers support that technology, and Internet Explorer doesn't. How you people think this is not important is beyond me, there should be standards that all browsers comply with. And right now, IE does not meet those standards. Being such a huge browser and failing Acid2 is just lame and stupid. It would be much like a gaming PC failing to perform on a standard rendering benchmark. In some cases, failure to meet standards is simply not acceptable. Especially in the world wide web. This is in addition to the lack of features Internet Explorer brings such as tabbed browsing or a built in pop-up blocker, as well as the lack of security that other browsers such as Safari and Firefox give users. The only argument one could have for supporting hiddious software is ignorance.

I'm a web developer. My method is to design for Firefox and make it compliant, then test the web site with IE to see if it works. If it does, then it's done. I do sacrifice some cosmetic elements, but I'd rather stick with Web Standards. That way it sends a clear message that my sites look better when you do not use IE.

This all strikes me as a silly debate. The real problem is that there isn't a standards standard right? As we look forward into the future, we must ask both what the purpose of the web is, what it's target audience is and where it's revenue stream comes from. The purpose of the web is both to share is to do business and also to share information. It's target audience is composed of tyre basic (broadly speaking) sections. Expert/Techincal altruists, expert/technical mercenaries users and average lay-people end-users. The expert/technical users are further divided in to altruists (A free web for all) and mercenaries (pay me). The revenue stream comes from either **** or large e-commerce focused companies. The over all goal is a seamless UI for everyone. The problems come up when we start to look at who gets to control the UI. Should the end-user have the right to compromise a well worked out brand identity or should a company have a right to a certain look and feel? At the end of the day, the lay-person doesn't care. So the debate is between the mercenaries and the altruists. Since the financing comes from the mercenary side of things: The standards are going to be set by the money, everytime. If a truly better product comes out that has all of the features, the ease-of-use and a lowercost than it's competitors, than it will succeed. As a result of it's success it will get to influence the direction of standard setting. The altruists have always had their version of whatever technology they wanted anyway. And eventually it gets adopted into the mainstream. I think we will all get what we want eventually. But what do we want? Me, I am not taking a side, so much as pointing what I believe to be the circumstances and logic of how things work.

Look M$ IS a monopoly that paid off enough folks to not make changes. They do NOT support standards because they want to inculcate everyone into their products with an iron fist. They push EVERYONE around in the industry and all their customers have to suck it up. boycott ie as a user by not using it.(except for "maybe" the windowsupdates) boycott ie as a developer by DUH-NOT DEVELOPING USING M$ Tools! develop for open standards and hang a note on the end "best viewed with anything BUT IE". all of you gd friggen M$ fanboiz can shove it. We are P.I.S.S.E.D OFF and not going to take it anymore. Pull your head out of your a.s.s.e.s and smell the s.h.i.t you are spewing and working in.

"The universal web standards are far better designed than Microsoft's own rulesets, and there is no good reason they shouldn't comply with them." You are missing the point. The IE7 folks have already publicly stated that complete compliance is the ultimate goal. What they have said is that they have prioritized all the steps allong the way and while they will make a fantastic amount o progress towards that goal by the time IE7 ships, they will not name it all the way. The WASP folk agree and they wrote the ACID2 test so Paul is just being a dick to get his web numbers up. The IE7 folks did NOT downplay the importance of web standards, they just stated that the ACID2 test does not (and does not claim to) demonstrate complete standars compliance and they are ordering their work based on requests from actual IE users, not based on passing the ACID2 test. As someone who creates web pages, I would rather they get their prioities from bug/feature request coming from actuall users then from some single test. Jorgie PS. I have rated this article as a 2 because there has actually been some good discussion because of it. Paul's actual contribution to the discussion gets a -1.

"The PC world is devoid of innovation or imagination. Is it any wonder PC users are clueless morons? It's only because of Apple's original iMac that you guys have USB ports on your computers. Steve Jobs may as well stop by your house and say "You're welcome." Next year, they're going to officially kill off the 1982-era BIOS you guys are all using and replace it with EFI. Expect PC makers, once again, to chase Apple's tail. I sure am glad to be using computers made by the original innovators and not the lame copiers. Have fun with Windows Vista in 2007, getting the OS X Tiger features I had back in March." I like how Apple's currently offered video cards are always AT LEAST one generation behind the current PC Video cards. I like how their Dual G5 tower weighs as much as a truck and had to use liquid cooling to get the CPUs down to a normal temperature. I love how Apple couldn't get an adequately powered mobile CPU and are now moving to the very same architecture that Intel is using. I love how Apple put PCI XPress and DDR Ram into their systems after it was availble on Intel machines. Same with DVD Writers. Oh, and my Hewlett Packard 200 mhz machine had USB ports (2 of them), and it came out before the iMac. Don't get me wrong, OSX looks dead sexy. And the fact that it's part BSD is awesome (I'm a Linux nut). But give credit where credit is due. Microsft has made quite a few mistakes, but so has Apple. Windows 95/98/ME sucked horribly, but what was out at the time that was better? Sure not OS9 with it's cooperative multitasking. What about the melting G4 cube? The iPod batteries that wore out after ~2 years and cost $199 to replace? The fact that the Dual G5 tower only has room for 1 optical drive and other limited upgradability? And to get back on track, I use firefox for all my web browsing needs and the only site that hasn't worked on was H&R Block.

All other browsers plan to support ACID 2. Dev builds of Safari already support it. Microsoft has no plans to support ACID now or anytime in the future. But the ACID test is not the only reason to send a message to Microsoft. What about XHTML support? Paul, thank you for having the courage to stand up to Microsoft. Microsoft does not understand kind and polite requests. The only thing this company understands is market shared and bad press. Let's send a message to Microsoft that we are here and we want standards now!

To the person who posted this: "If a website doesn't meet web standards in how it is HTMLed and coded, is that Microsoft's fault? It is up to the website owners to make sure that their public websites are coded to public standards. MSIE offers many technologies that as "extras", but thoses were really meant for "in house" use. When a company designs a website and CHOOSES a non-standard technology for that website, who's fault is that? IBM's? RedHat's Microsoft's Apple's ?" You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Do you know what browsers do? Do you know what CSS/XHTML are and what validation is? Judging by your ignorant post, you don't. Please research this stuff before making comments.

Without proper standards support, IE is useless to the masses and it deserves to die. M$ - It's time to own up and start fixing your blunders. GIVE US SOMETHING GOOD, OR DON'T GIVE US ANYTHING AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I only have to say one thing...The only thing that Microsoft will make that doesn't suck, is a vacum. If you have to think about that deeply, you need help that no human can provide.

I have to agree with Mr. Thurrott here. Microsoft being the biggest software company in the world has zero excuses in regards to being W3C compliant (or the lack thereof) and those defending Microsoft on not being compliant need to get a grip and stay off the Redmond koolaid for about a month to get onboard with the rest of the world and its desire to have an open World Wide Web (without any proprietary barriers) in which to surf!

Whether or not IE complies with all mighty standards committee is irrelevant. Consumers will choose which browser they prefer, and companies will have to comply, it’s as simple as that. MS didn’t monopolize the software market against the will of consumers. And you still have the option to go with all sorts of various Linux distributions if you wish. The social taboo of sticking up for a Microsoft product in the software world seems to stem from the self boasting of people who believe computing ought to be hard. It’s no wonder why consumers are not exercising this option.

What the hell is wrong with you people? And the article author "Paul Thurrott" ? ACID 2 IS NOT A COMPLIANCE TEST!! Acid2 is a test that excercises many things that are not in the standard at all, but which certain web developers would *like* to do. IE7 will be fully complient, but the MS team are not interested in the wish lists of a few vocal fringe developers (for better or worse).

For too long have I made websites that work straight forward with Firefox and the like after creation then open it up in IE and am horrified at the way it ruins the layout. When I finally get it to work in IE I have changed the site so much that Firefox doesnt render properly. The middle ground is hard to reach sometimes and I end up using javascript to hack IE to function semi-correctly. People think that because they can view a site perfectly in IE that theres nothing wrong with it. Wrong! As web developers we are forced to make websites that function in all browsers where possible. IE has a huge market share, if my client's website would not work in IE I'd be out of a job. I try encourage people to use Firefox whenever possible not for security sake (even though thats a reason in itself) but to help rid the world of IE's problems and shortening our development time and hassels. I followed this link from slashdot and I fully agree with a boycott. I am going to make all my personal websites function improper in IE and I suggest every web developer do the same. I think its time the web had some innovation of its own and resolved its biggest issue instead of going around it.

lol apple FINALLY CAME OUT WITH A 2 BUTTON MOUSE, THE MIGHT MOUSE THEY CALL YET. funny it costs 50 dollars yet it still uses a ball instead of optics.

Paul, Stop your whinning. Whne you can do better, let us know..

"No one is stopping anyone from using firefox" Guess you haven't been in the majority of businesses in the US.

The majority of these post make me smile and I will tell you why: I COULD CARE LESS IF I.E. IS THE LEAST COMPLIANT BROWSER ON THE PLANET. To me, it doesn't matter. Why? Because I use Safari on a Mac running Tiger. And get this, if I go to a site that doesn't render in Safari due to f**ked up "IE only" code then the choice is quite simple, I don't visit that site. If you choose to only develop for IE then I choose not to go to your site, it's that simple. If you want to make MS change then boycott the OS not the browser. What did you think would happen, Firefox would become so popular that they would decided to uncouple IE from Vista? Not hardly. Oh well, I really don't care because I am safely surfing the web in a completely secure, speedy browser. So, have fun all you IE chumps out there!

How 'bout if we let Google.com hash it all out. Google should make HTML/CSS validation part of page ranking. If my corporate website suddenly dropped to the bottom of the listings I'd want MS to explain why. If they say that being standards-based isn't important to them I'd press harder.

"lol apple FINALLY CAME OUT WITH A 2 BUTTON MOUSE, THE MIGHT MOUSE THEY CALL YET. funny it costs 50 dollars yet it still uses a ball instead of optics" Uh... A) not sure what this has to do with the article B) Apple has been making optical mice for years, this one is no exception. Maybe you're thinking of the scroll thingy on TOP of the mouse? C) Moron.

"My advice here is simple: Boycott Internet Explorer." I agree. But reality is simple: that would mean 99% sales loss on 95% of the sites out there. It would partial frakin' economic collapse. Better solution: send a virus around that deletes IE and replaces it with Firefox. Oh yeah. Lol...

Nice article, but when you reccomend a browser, like in this case Firefox, the reader get a feel of that you are non partial. So, everyone that has a problem with IE, and want to recemend a browser who is W3C compliant, don't reccomend one before the other. Firefox and Opera should be set equal, just so that the reader can deside for him/herself. I am tired of people who only talks about Fireox as the only alternative. People may think that you may not know that much about this compliant problem.

As a Web standards evangelist and after reading the IE7 blog I was very encouraged. By the way, not even firefox passes the ACID test. The point of WEb standards is to allow us Web developers from creating multiple sites for multiple platforms (in part). In general we are left with just a few hacks to make the web a cross-browser happy place. I don't see IE7 moving away from standards.

Web standards are important huh, ever run your code through Tiday.... 12 errors, and 169 warnings... Nice Job with that standards thing

Fact - No "publicly released" browser is 100% ACID2 compliant. Supposedly, some are compliant if you grab the source of the latest work-in-progress version. Also, many of these standards came out or were being worked on after IE 6 was released. In fact, isn't CSS 2.1 still a working draft?!

1. No browser is 100% standards compliant, nor will it ever be since the "standards" are ever changing. 2. I use IE7 and other than the ACID-2 test page, I have not had a single problem viewing any page. 3. MS responded to customers and added features like tabbed browsing (granted, MS wasn't first) and a much improved UI. 4. No browser has been without security flaws although MS has been the biggest target (but not the least secure). It would be nice if people who offered their opinion actually knew something about web programming and development. A feature missing in the current version of Paul Thurrott.

Safari does have pass Acid 2 Test, but Core of KHTML is very early so it can Break Acid 2 Test later on the future. if you read IE Team Blog, they don't care of Web Developer. If Site on IE only site propably using Front Page, it make site look terrible. Web Standard are important today and future. You don't know future going to bring.

By the way, Paul, did you even bother to read anything about Acid-2? Check out their own "About" page at http://webstandards.org/act/acid2/guide.html. It tells you that many of the tests aren't to test standards compliance. Some of the tests check for things "developers want" (whoever those developers are - I never asked for those features), and illegal CSS calls - as if there is some standard that says you can code incorrectly and every browser should be able to recognize your cr*ppy coding and ignore it. Get a clue. Acid-2 is NOT a compliance test at all. It is a platform for some individuals to express their own view of the web. If you want to influence standards join IEEE.

if their reasoning is backward compatibility – the browser could look at the DOCTYPE and render standards compliant for strict XHTML/HTML4. and remain backward compatible for pages that are older DOCTYPEs (or don’t have one…)

Paul, you said "IE isn't secure and isn't standards-compliant, which makes it unworkable both for end users and Web content creators", but Firefox is also insecure (in 2005 it has much more bugs than IE 6) and also fails Acid2 test ... If you don't like IE7, ok, but you need better arguments to convince someone to use any other browser ...

Great article. Microsoft needs to really work on standards compliance issues and stop doing things the way it wants to. I'm tried of coding for IE. My sites are always hand coded in 100% standards compliance. I do have IE degrades if it is detected, but I would prefer not to have to use those anymore.

"The most critical point in Wilson's post, in my mind, is Microsoft's admission that it will fail the crucial Acid2 browser-compliance test , which the Web Standards Project (WaSP) designed to help browser vendors ensure that their products properly support Web standards" And your point is Paul? Safari is the only widly used browser available today that dose support ACID 2. And that's not saying much as it is still useless for web browsing. FUD that's what that is Paul, the amount of noise and dribble you have generated this week gose to show that you missed the Vista announment bandwagon and are now trying to play journalisim catch up by bagging Microsoft.

Paul, I don't know if you have any control over this, but some of your adverts crash firefox if JavaScript is enabled. This problem has existed for like a month or more, and i've sent them those feedback things with details, so I do wonder why it keeps happening.

Lemme guess.... That explains how 3 pages of comments became 13...

"It's not popular because it's a great browser... It is Microsoft's fault that people can't use web standards" Stop with the regurgitation, you're not contributing anything we didn't already know (in other words, you're stating the obvious with everyone else). I wouldn't mind as much if so many of you weren't doing that. Do you guys just like to hear yourself talk (you know what I mean, shut up)? "Safari's WebKit is the only renderer to pass Acid2. Once again, Apple is kicking Microsoft's butt and leaving them far behind, and the Windows ship are happy to eat our dust." I thought KDE's browser was too... "Apple is kicking Microsoft's butt" That's why SO many people use Mac OS X! Oh wait... :P. Last time I was in the local Best Buy, they didn't have a Apple section, or Apples period. I don't believe CompUSA or Sam's Club did either, and those seem to be the places people get their computers from. They did have iPods though. One thing Apple seems to be profiting considerably from. And yeah, CompUSA has them, but they're in a tiny little section dwarfed by all the PC stuff :P.

As you so commonly say, Mac Troll... Would you like some salt with your crow? ...and yes, I know about the relationship with Apple and KDE's browser, please don't bring that up. The fact you neglected to mention KDE's browser is what bothered me. It's not the same thing as Safari. Don't waste your breath.

Read this article and then rethink about your post: http://www.molly.com/2005/07/29/standard-me-and-ie/

So, let me get this straight; I'm supposed to tell my clients that although their pages dont render, they should pay me because their sites are 100% standards compliant? Gee Paul, that is a nice dream. If you really want to blame someone, blame Netscape. Had they done their part early on, Microsoft might not have been able to eat their lunch why Netscape fixed their crappy code. Did you say boycott Netscape when they were not supporting CSS at all back in the day? I think I will make my pages render, before I worry about making them compliant, thank you.

You, Mr. Paul Thurrott are a cancer for the IT world. You'll miserabily fail. This is not a boycott this is called "ENVY". You can't mention a browser that meets standards. FireFox doesn't meet standards and isn't secure, same goes for Mozilla, Communicator/Netscape, Opera, etc... no one meets standards. Don't make my laught, you'll not stop IE7 to get the browsers market yet another time for your sadnest. This article is a perfect sample of how FUD works. I'll boycott you instead, and will never again come here to read anything. Anyone? Said this, Goodbye.

The problem with MS is it's secreity fixes aren't fixes at all. The more you tend to update IE, the more it breaks. It's almost like these security "fixes" are downgrades. They hog up too many resources and just move the problem 'under the rug'. In other words the problem still exists, just in another location. IE7 is nothing more than a marketing scheme,as MS has grown to love. Stop forcing manufactuers into slapping Windows on every machine and make a product that is LEAN, CLEAN and just 'gets R Done' enough with all this fancy backdoor cookie crap.

Excellent article Paul. Finally, some outrage! Whutta day, I hope it never ends, reading Paul get flamed on all the Miro$oft fanatic websites, blogs and boards!!! HAHAHAAHA!! "Microsoft is years behind Apple" - Paul Thurrott

It appears that some people don't understand why IE not being compliant and rendering correctly matters. If someone develops a web page that, following standards, is supposed to display a certain way and on IE, it doesn't, that developer will change the code so it does. However these changes may break it on other browsers, which may or may not be tested against. When someone goes to that site on someone else's browser and it looks broken, they will assume the browser is broken because, "Hey it works on IE!" Microsoft can do this since they have 90%+ (I think) share of the browser market. It is in thier best interest to keep people using IE, no matter what. "Embrace and extend" is the Microsoft way, you can hear it from them directly. Essentially, they will take some sort of standard and add on to it. However, if someone eventually uses those additions (intentionally or not) it may break on other platforms. This is one way Microsoft captures members from an open audience. Honestly, it's what they should be doing. Microsoft, since they answer to shareholders like every other company, needs to make money. There is no money is just being a team player. They need to stand out somehow and make people depend on them.

Let’s get into standards now. Guess what, Paul? Your site, winsupersite.com currently has 124 validation errors, according to the W3C’s Markup Validation Service. Even worse, the page which contains your “Boycott IE” story currently has 207 validation errors. http://www.extended64.com/blogs/rhoffman/archive/2005/08/02/1118.aspx

Firefox wins. Fatality.

When I look at some of these comments I wonder wether to laugh or to cry. These comments prove that a large part of the web development jobs truely belong to the "ashtray" of the job market. If you have *EVER* dev'ed a reasonably complex site, you *KNOW* that IE is a drama. For every 10 minutes writing creating a webpage, you spend another 30 minutes working around IE bugs. Why can't the position: fixed property work? Why won't IE support max-width? Why does IE drop out of standards mode on an xml declaration? Indeed, no IE fanboy can explain, all the they can do is call people that complain about this crybabies and whiners. You so called web developers... either find some competence or go bag hamburers at your local fat-food establishment.

You know Paul, for months many people (like myself) have tried to ignore your uneducated views on Internet Explorer because of the other halfway decent content on your sites. Based on the number of comments, I guess we've all had just about enough of it. Read Ryan Hoffman's blog post (referred to a couple of comments above)...he cleans your clock. Who knows...maybe this collective smackdown might actually bring you back to your senses.

Not only are none of the browsers "fully standards compliant" but there actually *is* no such thing. The people who make the standards aren't software developers, and surely don't document exactly how a browser should act when a given set of circumstances are in play. If you're good with CSS, you *can* create pages that render well in all browsers--it just takes some tweaking/fidgeting, and does *not* require implementing IE-only technologies. Firefox is ultimately going to be good for IE (tho even it doesn't render your article well for me, as your ads cover half the text). Nobody I know of is *forced* to use IE, and I already have seen many make the switch, in a short period of time...

Quick clarification: Perhaps those who develop standards *are* software developers, I don't know, but the point is they aren't the ones writing the browsers.

Right, lets boycott IE because MS won't support the Acid2. VERY few browsers render it properly. What a poor article.

Right lets call this article poor because we can highlight one sentence and disagree with that. What a poor comment.

Saying that IE7 will be "more compliant" is deceptive. It's like when Microsoft says that they spend more money on security than any other software company. That's nice, but "more compliant" does not mean "fully compliant" anymore than saying "we spend the most on security" means "our products are completely secure." Unfortunately this is a topic that turns most people off. Joe Internet User is not a website developer and therefore doesn't care about this stuff and will continue to use whatever came with the system. It's the priciple of the matter, really, but people don't care about principles that much either. Then again, Microsoft is behind the 8-ball some too. They are so locked into backwards compatibility thanks to their long-term dominance that making a fully compliant browser probably is near impossibile. Of course, whose fault is it that they ignored standards before? And how much are they promoting to their developer base the importance of open standards?

Hmmm, all interesting stuff. I must say that IE can be very frustrating. As a web developer, trying to make sites cross browser compatible can be a nightmare. What I find interesting is the way IE renders is very hit and miss, I've found Firefox to be the most consistent with the way it renders pages. IE can be very hit and miss. As for boycotting it, well I think it's to entrenched for that, rather than boycott, shouldn't we just be encouraging them to make the browser as compliant as possible.

Despite the venom coming from people who apparently want to have Bill Gates' love child, IE7 needs to BEAT the other browsers in compliance, or it has failed out of the gate. HOW many years has IE sat on the shelf with little more than patches applied to it because MS figured they'd "won." Now here comes Firefox, and they suddenly decide to revive IE development? Anyone else smell a rat? Boycott it. Tell Microsoft how you feel. Stop accepting what they dish out... It's the only way they'll listen.

My advice to Paul... please get a job on LinuxITPro.com and leave the Windows Advocacy business. You're perspective is more frustrating than anything else. IE works like a champ. A "standard" is only something that a group of poeple "claim" it to be. Not something that "is". Microsoft has already created a "standard". Perhaps Mozilla should try to adopt it.

If I had someone fire bullets at my head for every stupid comment posted here, I would more-or-less be headless. It's amazing to me how so many of you think that by posting things we've already read on Slashdot.org, you're somehow helping humanity or some other BS. This may shock you, but some people here visit slashdot on a regular basis. It's interesting you guys attack Microsoft (rightly so) for the lack on innovation, but you have no problem being uninnovative with your own damn comments. Have your own damn thoughts and think for yourself, or eat dick.

Biitch, biitch, biitch... You can't use CSS right because MSIE won't let you. Deal with it. Sure, Microsoft should be supporting it, but it doesn't look like they're gonna support it fully and all the ******** in the world doesn't look like it's gonna change that. Instead of wasting your time here, how about advertising for Firefox more? And I don't mean in a troll-ish way. Just keep improving firefox, fix the damn javascript crash that's been in it for ages, and you'll keep getting new users :).

I'm sorry Microsoft makes your job SOOOOO hard. Welcome to life :O. In life, you're going to run into people and things that make your life harder than it needs to be. They're almost always going to be there. Even if the CSS were to be fully supported, you would just end up with another thing to complain and be dissapointed about. I have ran into times where Firefox supported something with style sheets that MSIE didn't with my code, and it bothered me, but I dealt with it. If people want things to work right, they can get a better browser.

"Microsoft has already created a "standard". Perhaps Mozilla should try to adopt it." You're right, Microsoft did create their OWN standard. Everyone else would rather use the ones set out by the W3C though it seems and not be at the whim of Microsoft constantly playing catch-up.

"Microsoft has already created a "standard". Perhaps Mozilla should try to adopt it." what do u think m$ is ? because it has a monopoly , it is allowed to tell others how things should work and creates its own "standards ." hell NO !

Err, scratch my last comment. The comment that says: "Microsoft has already created a "standard". Perhaps Mozilla should try to adopt it." Was probably that damn Apple troll.

Wow, thanks for that insightful article. I'll just use Firefox then, shall I? After all, it passes Acid2. Oh... wait 1.0.6 which I just downloaded, doesn't in fact pass Acid2. Are you a liar, Mr. Thurott, or just stupid?

"My advice is simple: Boycott IE. It's a cancer on the Web that must be stopped." I have a great idea, Paul. Why don't you start the ball rolling with this and write all of your articles in markup that won't render in IE? I'd love to not have view stumble across this sort of crap in the future.

>>If other methods work "equally well" what's the >>problem with MS sticking to their guns?? By your >>own statement it works equally well. >>Or should MS spend ages, further delaying the >>security IE needs, in order to not progress any >>further?? Oh please people. The point isn't that at all. The point is that web development and having browser interoperability is a bleeming nightmare, and I challenge anyone who suggests otherwise. IE has for so long tried allowed their HTML engine to be so flexible and implement some things in an IE only way, that either the burden falls on us developers to try to fix everything so it works for everyone, or that all the other web browsers end up doing things the IE way, regardless of the web standards... which is pretty hard for them to do. or we all have to dump other browsers, which is just unreasonable. So, as you guess, the burden falls on the web developers, so this kind of thing actually prevents web developers from doing cool new things... thanquu very much nowadays ive stopped designing things for IE, instead for Firefox, unless expressedly being told to do, so in a sense, im already boycotting IE. its not for the sake of it though, but seriously because caused me a lot of pain

"My advice is simple: Boycott IE. It's a cancer on the Web that must be stopped. IE isn't secure and isn't standards-compliant, which makes it unworkable both for end users and Web content creators. Because of their user bases, however, Web developers are hamstrung into developing for IE at the expense of established standards that work well in all other browsers. You can turn the tide by demanding more from Microsoft and by using a better alternative Web browser. I recommend and use Mozilla Firefox, but Apple Safari (Macintosh only) and Opera 8 are both worth considering as well." Well ******* said. That's the best damn thing anybody has said in a long time. Cheers mate!

I've read a few of the comments here and I have to say I agree with Paul. There is no "other method" or "other standard" and it isn't that what there is doesn't work "equally well, it is that what there is doesn't work period. IE's rendering engine is horribly broken and does not render the specifications Microsoft made through its participation in the W3C. There is no alternative specification that "works equally well" or has any kind of advantage. There is no alternative specification at all. What there is, is the W3C's specifications, which Microsoft played a huge role in making and so far refuses to support correctly. What support these specifications do have is horribly broken and anyone that writes semantic XHTML markup properly will find getting IE to render it properly is heck. They will also find that the alternative route of hacks (which Microsoft promotes constantly) just doesn't work. The hacks (CSS or otherwise) IE forces web developers to use makes their lives heck as they are designed around IE's rendering engine's bugs, they are required to work in mutiple browsers and they are huge incomprehensible blocks of code that take exponential amounts of time just trying to comprehend. No one is choosing a non-standard technology. No one is choosing a spec at all. What people are doing is using a route of incomprehensible code that take exponential amounts of time to work with, wastes bandwidth, increases loading times and ruins the user experience. If Microsoft maintained an alternate specification that IE could actually render, we wouldn't be talking about IE's standards support today. Instead, we'd be using Microsoft's specification, but as I said, they don't have one. This is not a choice between a standard and a nonstandard. This is a choice between having an internet that works and having an internet that doesn't work, and this is why I support everything Paul said in this article, for if it is not done, web development will continue to be heck.

I love how people are spinning out conspiracy theories left and right, as though the IE lead was brought into a darkened Bill Gates's office, where Bill sat, Blofeld-style, with a Persian cat and said, "You vill not support zee veb standards." The truth is probably a lot simpler, folks. Microsoft gains no direct revenue from IE development, but corporate customers locked into MSFT's proprietary IE weirdness spend money on Windows licenses. I'm sure the head of the IE team wants to make IE as great a product as any competing product out there, but they can't implement full standards if it means taking a chance on ticking off the big companies who've standardized on IE as a platform. After all, if Joe IT Manager realizes that he's gonna have to retool his web apps, he might just decide to go all the way and have everything written to be platform-agnostic... and then he'll have less need for Windows Vista licenses! The fact that this is happening shows that Microsoft is hung up against the ropes, hanging on to the cliff of their biggest revenue source (business, aka VOLUME LICENSES) by their fingernails. By not implementing the standards fully, Microsoft is admitting that they have no other way of keeping such customers aside from appealing to their development budgets. (After all, if you never update your web apps, your development costs are zero!) And as for the Acid2 test: well, it IS a test of compliance, but not exactly a real-world one. I'm also pretty sure Konqueror passes. (Yes. http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/1129) --Robert D. Continued in the next comment...

Wow, Thurott is actually being flamed by Windows people. I guess those people don't like the idea of customers "demanding more from Microsoft".

...continued from the last comment. As for the idea that it's not Microsoft's fault that sites don't work right in IE, let me give you a hypothetical scenario. Let's say you buy a word processor, which we'll call Type-O (har har) and let's say you're writing a term paper with Type-O. Now your paper's done. You've written the most brilliant paper ever! All that's left is to print it out and hand it in. However, when you go to print, the letters on the page are all scrambled. Is this Type-O Corporation's fault? Why, it sure is! Now, instead of a word processor, substitute the program you use the most at work: database app, inventory control, medical records, credit ratings. If these programs don't accurately reflect the data they are supposed to present, that could be a big problem! (Ever seen "Brazil"? Think of the Buttle/Tuttle mix-up.) OF COURSE noncompliance is Microsoft's fault. It sure isn't Jill Web Developer's fault; she's writing perfectly-formed XHTML and CSS which work really well in Opera, Mozilla, Konqueror... and it even degrades nicely to Lynx! Now, on the other hand, if Microsoft can knock out 90% of the nasty bugs I encounter every day, I'll be a happy guy. Let's not forget that Microsoft only restarted development of IE--what? A year ago?--after four or five years of stagnation. Hell, I doubt there's anyone there who even REMEMBERS the codebase. No, IE7 might not be perfect, but as a web developer, it's not my job to tell people what browser to use; if I do, then we're back in 1996 all over again. My goal is to make things work well in all browsers...and that includes IE. I don't use it except for testing, but Biff AOL User is gonna. So bite down and get ready for the little slash-star combos that allow us to hack around the bugs in IE7. And just remember: Even if they get 90% of the way there, that's 110% better for developers. --Robert D.

It's probably a good thing in some ways MSIE doesn't pass standards test. Even on big sites, you still have code that looks like this: Welcome to this site
Here you will find lots of stuff & things that you "like". Unclosed tags, others that are closed in wrong order, title not within head block, and certian symbols shouldn't be (there's a reason why & and " exist, use them). PLEASE web devs who read this. Use the © thing instead of just pasting in a (c) character. Those don't show up right on all systems.

Also, and most of you probably know this, use lowercase with your tag names. It won't kill you to try and be semi-compatible with XHTML :\.

This is so much a non-story. Paul, I know you're a regular ***-hat but you've outdone yourself pouring vitriol on a Microsoft product even this time. Weren't there enough Apple fan boys who hated your poorly researched one sided biased reviews of Apple kit already that you had to add the religious Microsoft nuts too? I hope the Microsoft users of this site realise why the Apple users think Paul is such an idiot when they see he can't get facts right about Microsoft's technology, never mind Apples. Here's Chris Wilson, of the IE Team explaining why IE7 Beta1 contains only a couple of CSS fixes, and listing all the fixes the team have already done for Beta2... http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx Personally, as a web developer, I'm greatly encouraged by what is looking to be a good list of bugfixes for Beta2.

What I meant by the "It's probably a good thing in some ways MSIE doesn't pass standards test." comment is this. There will always be people who just don't write good code. It's like writing a paper in some ways. Some people are good at it, and others aren't. In a way MSFT is supporting the lowest common denominator by allowing people to get away with bad code. Even the people who rely on WYSIWYG editors are probably going to have bad code sometimes, because of bugs or "features" in their editor.

You are arguing over a dead platform - who cares. Browsers are good for reading crap. As an application platform - they suck ***. Notice that 'REAL' applications are not written in browsers - correction - REAL applications that do not suck - are not written in browsers. Please do us all a favor and quit trying to put complex GUIs and apps that require interaction with data in a browser. They ALL SUCK. Just because you are too lazy to deploy REAL software and think all the extra time you spent shoehorning a complex app into a browser was worth the time you saved in deployment, but instead you delivered a steaming pile of **** with cool graphics - kudos to you. Quit using the wrong tool for the job!!! The browser makes for the lousiest user experience Ive ever had. I want a 3270 or Telnet session back - they work better for anything useful. Talk about a bad idea gone amuck - this must be stopped!!! If you are a web developer writing applications that people actually have to use in their jobs, you should be stopped and lobotimized.

You are going crazy on a Beta 1 product...which looks hillarious...

It seems that many people are taking Paul's article as an excuse to continue the tired debate of which browser to use. His argument, as I read it at least, is about Microsoft's complacency and, dare I say, arrogance. From what I read, he is pointing out that Microsoft, being as large as it is, has an equally large responsibility to the web and its growth. Whether you as an individual like the W3C standards or not is wholly unimportant. What is important is that they are agreed-upon standards. Standards which, in effect, give designers and developers a solid blueprint on which to base their code and designs upon. When a company such as Microsoft abuses and ignores those standards to the degree that they have, they make those standards almost null and void - at least in terms of implementation. They can do that, you say? Sure, but I fail to see them publishing their own standards either. What actually happens is that the burden is placed on designers and developers who take the time to find solutions for the high number of CSS and layout inconsistencies which IE produces. Thankfully, these same people make these solutions available to others, giving a fighting chance of supporting that God-forsaken excuse for a modern browser. I grow tired of the moot point that Joe Average doesn't care. Maybe he doesn't but who do you think puts all those pages up for Joe Average to view in the first place? The mystic page fairy, perhaps? Paul is absolutely correct in stating that Microsoft are holding web-development back, by an inexcusable amount, might I add. Microsoft's half-hearted committment cuts no ice here. Either they are fully committed to standards or they are not. There is no fall-back excuse of it breaking thousands of websites. As for those worried about their pages breaking, that's the price you pay for following an MS Standard when other more widely-accepted ones are available to you.

Paul, you clearly do not understand the topic of your essay. Wow, it would be great if MS blazed boldly forward into complete CSS 3 & SVG support, but first let's get the basics working! Be happy Microsoft has at least a few people working to fix IE's horrendous CSS rendering bugs. ACID2 does not test every aspect of a browsers' CSS support. In fact it only tests border cases. IE7 could be made to pass ACID2 and STILL exhibit some of the same f*cked up rendering errors. Microsoft must be careful to fix IE7's page rendering so that it doesn't freak out on the older IE5 & 6 CSS hacks (like superstar Tantek Box Model http://tantek.com/CSS/Examples/boxmodelhack.html). Bottom line: More standards compliance gives web developers the ability to create more efficient, sustainable web sites/pages/code, and perhaps curse MS far less for their CSS treachery!

A comment mede: "If a website doesn't meet web standards in how it is HTMLed and coded, is that Microsoft's fault?" Yes actually it is. Microsoft tools to make webpages are made to NOT support the web standards. Microsoft has created it's own standards for things that work already under the web standard. They keep it proprietry. By that they are using their almost monopoly to push their competitors out of business. Microsoft has been doing things like this for ages. Using one monopoly to create an other monopoly. And because those tools are on most peoples computer and because a lot of people don't really know howto code websites but only howto use tools, more and more websites will not meet the standards anymore. That is what is a real cancer. Because of that crap, websites exist that do not work well with decent browsers, and thus pushing people to use crappy IE. It's a sad thing that there are people actually supporting this kind of business.

Please. Does PT actually know what he's talking about? Mozilla/Firefox is just as buggy and insecure, Opera and Safari is a joke and Netscape is dead, dead dead. There is no alternative to IE, because nothing else compares to IE. I have never been a victim of a phishing attack, never had my information stolen, never been infected with malware or viruses (of course, being an IT pro helps!)... IE isn't insecure and buggy, the users are. Maybe PT should stop surfing kiddie pr0n on his lunch break, and then maybe he can enjoy IE for the stable, secure browser that it is. PT, get a real job. You;re just as bad as that loser Dvorak. Freaking moron.

Use Internet Explorer! Use it all the time! Fry potatoes with it! Use it to wash your face, parse your strings, wax your car, lubricate your genitals! (with an apology to the original author)

"Totally agreed... As sites can recognize the OS of the client computer, they should (and they can) recognize the Browser Platform and translate it..." Yes and no. We web programmers (at least myself) have use my every effort to make sure my page will run on IE and Mozilla based browsers (Safari not test because we have no Mac to run it) But as you can see by "view source" on those "cross browser" web site's pages, you can see there's signiciant amount of "user unnoticable codes" written to achieve this goal, and of course it takes time, and time means money. I can't remember how many times I have to fight back my manager's attempt to "cut other web browser's support and support IE only". It'll certainly make my life easier if the browers just follow "standards" and let us simply remove those "non productive" codes. And don't tell me to just drop support for other browsers. We have good 15% of customer using those non-IE browsers and dropping support for that could bring me into another complaint nightmare.

MS reasons for not supporting latest CSS, and latest DOM is not acceptable ! If the page contains a DTD and is for instance saying XHTML 1.0 Strict, why MS can not apply a realy strict and compatible rendering ? If you don't have any DTD then, go on with the "bad old" quirks mode guys ! When NS was leading on this markey, they have become too sure of themselves ignoring comments, feedback from users .... then IE has appeared and it was much complient, much fast, much stable. No IE is just old, and is suffering from lack of standard support, slowness and instability. And contenders like Firefox or Opera are more fast more standard based and more fancy as well. So as we have get rid of NS for the same reason Seriously, I do not see any reasons for us to still use IE, at all. With the upcoming version of Firefox going to support SVG, I realy think that unless MS make a big move and support 100% CSS spec, 100% DOM spec and introduce SVG support (replacing proprietary VML) IE is about to sink in the next couple of years ....

"You are arguing over a dead platform - who cares. Browsers are good for reading crap. As an application platform - they suck ***. Notice that 'REAL' applications are not written in browsers - correction - REAL applications that do not suck - are not written in browsers. Please do us all a favor and quit trying to put complex GUIs and apps that require interaction with data in a browser. They ALL SUCK. Just because you are too lazy to deploy REAL software and think all the extra time you spent shoehorning a complex app into a browser was worth the time you saved in deployment, but instead you delivered a steaming pile of **** with cool graphics - kudos to you. Quit using the wrong tool for the job!!! The browser makes for the lousiest user experience Ive ever had. I want a 3270 or Telnet session back - they work better for anything useful. Talk about a bad idea gone amuck - this must be stopped!!! If you are a web developer writing applications that people actually have to use in their jobs, you should be stopped and lobotimized." Not agreed. Should web browers be so "non-fault tolerant" that any malformed HTML code will not render, all web developers will be force to write good codes or they'll be wasting their time. And WEB will be as good a platform as JAVA for applications. Just because there's so much "standards" exist, browsers are made to tolerant "buggy codes", and therefore people found "buggy codes" are ok and continue to use them, and brower developers later finds out if they don't support "buggy code", a lot of site will not work, and... I'll say that it's wrong at the beginning and if web "standards" cannot be "standardized" web simply won't make it for reliable computing. (I know that the story don't actually goes like this, but my point of view stands)

No choice, no IE for Linux rofl ^^

IE 7 breaks System Restore and is very hard to get rid of, the uninstaller is a POS as it doesn't remove much. Another problem is once its uninstalled you have to run sfc -scannow to get System Restore working again. My advice don't install IE 7 Beta 1 on a working machine that you can't live without, lol.

"With the upcoming version of Firefox going to support SVG, I realy think that unless MS make a big move and support 100% CSS spec, 100% DOM spec and introduce SVG support (replacing proprietary VML) IE is about to sink in the next couple of years ...." To be fair, I have to say there's not necessary complete CSS support. Certainly CSS1 must be throughly supported, but for CSS2 I believe supporting a good percentage, including most essential features, is enough. And I cannot find a web brower that has full CSS2 support today.

IE 7 UI sucks period, I don't know how anyone can even stand it. Microsoft should stick to there own guns, but it doesn't take much effort make the browser standards complaince. Microsoft is just being lazy in my opinion, they just don't want to be bossed around by the W3C which is understandable. Why do you think the latest Netscapes have been so popular, they offer a browser that can work in both modes. As far as breaking major sites? Well it the site is smart enough and worth my time they will code to standards and not to IE, pretty any site coded to standards will look fine in IE. The only problem is CSS2 support and also no support to run XHTML as an XML Application, although no browser has that function yet, not even Firefox 1.5 (Deer Park).

I am currently developing a major e-commerce site and can't believe how poor IE is to us developers. This is ridiculous and must stop!!I have spent more time switching browsers to check that my pages haven't broken than developing. Someone should create a way to check that your code works in different browsers at the click of a button.

I wonder if they are actually going to fix the printing bug in IE7 that makes you lose about an inch of the right hand side of your page when printing A4 in portrait?

Paul stop being a Fanboy

You take a topic and go on Blah blah about it. face it! everything and everybody has problems..so..viewpoints differ. I've been using IE all my life and have been using IE7 for about a week and a half and think its cool. I dont care about standards since I use Flash. Thats my viewpoint!

"I dont care about standards since I use Flash. Thats my viewpoint!" Ok, you can use Flash for all web pages, and people without broadband connections will have to wait forever for your pretty charming Flash movie to load. And hey, search engines cannot get words from Flash and cannot give you Flash page a good rank for relevence. HTML based page will load much faster given those code for "brower compatibility" included.

A comment made: "If a website doesn't meet web standards in how it is HTMLed and coded, is that Microsoft's fault?" Yes it bloody is. If i write a fully compliant CSS based site which renders perfectly in Firefox, Opera, Netscape etc but doesnt in IE i MUST hack it to pieces in order to stop it dieing! (thus making it non compliant). Ive been developing sites for over 10 years and in the last 2/3 years made the switch to CSS based sites. For those that dont think IE is to blame, i strongly suggest you learn a bit of CSS and give it a try, you will be banging your head on the desk within about, ohhh, id say 10 minutes Is that my fault? Hardly

"If a website doesn't meet web standards in how it is HTMLed and coded, is that Microsoft's fault?" If a website has to resort to using CSS hacks and multiple CSS style sheets to work in both standards-compliant *AND* IE browsers, it isn't the fault of the web site designer (BTW that's the step after validating to a transitional or strict DTD for HTML or XHTML). Perhaps it because you've never had the misfortune of having to go through the headache of getting a site to look the same in IE as well as compliant browsers or else you wouldn't even ask. Either that or you code only for IE, in which case it isn't the rest of us that's not coding to standards, it be you...

STOP THURROTT Very usefull farticle

all you anonymous wimps!!!

There are only a few bugs that really cause any problems in IE6. MS have already stated that nearly all of these have been fixed already and will be included in Beta 2. Most of the features of the Acid 2 test are very obscure features that 98% of web developers will never use and thus would be a waste of time for MS to spend effort developing. I'd rather have IE7 a year sooner rather than wait another year for them to develop every single little obscure CSS2 feature. Why boycott IE when by the time it is final release - it will be one of the most standards compliant browsers that exist. For windows users there are few other alternatives. Browsers like Firefox and Mozilla have better support for standards, but won't be any better than IE7. Any web developer knows that Firefox still has a long way to go to support CSS2. That leaves only Safari, which isn't available for Windows anyway. Any web developer that boycotts IE when designing websites is simply insane. For the forseeable future, IE will have the greater market share and your site NEEDS to work perfectly on it. Paul seems to have forgotten that MS do not make any money by selling IE, so boycotting it won't do anyone any favours. I have a more mature approach and I suggest exactly the opposite: get Beta 2 when it's available and send MS your feedback. Now is the last chance to request missing features before IE7 becomes final.

"If Windows could update without IE, nor it wasn't so integrated to the shell, I'd uninstall it at once (with certain software)." Try windowsupdate.62nds.com in Firefox. It works brilliantly, even for VLK key-users...

Who would think about using an accounting program giving wrong results upon 100% correct data ? If a site is 100% compliant towards standards (HTML, CSS ...) and the browser doesn't cope with it : get rid of that browser. No need to tell which one.

There are only a few bugs that really cause any problems in IE6. MS have already stated that nearly all of these have been fixed already and will be included in Beta 2. Most of the features of the Acid 2 test are very obscure features that 98% of web developers will never use and thus would be a waste of time for MS to spend effort developing. I'd rather have IE7 a year sooner rather than wait another year for them to develop every single little obscure CSS2 feature. Why boycott IE when by the time it is final release - it will be one of the most standards compliant browsers that exist. For windows users there are few other alternatives. Browsers like Firefox and Mozilla have better support for standards, but won't be any better than IE7. Any web developer knows that Firefox still has a long way to go to support CSS2. That leaves only Safari, which isn't available for Windows anyway. Any web developer that boycotts IE when designing websites is simply insane. For the forseeable future, IE will have the greater market share and your site NEEDS to work perfectly on it. Paul seems to have forgotten that MS do not make any money by selling IE, so boycotting it won't do anyone any favours. I have a more mature approach and I suggest exactly the opposite: get Beta 2 when it's available and send MS your feedback. Now is the last chance to request missing features before IE7 becomes final.

Who the hell gave him a permission to write on IT *PROS* ? The author is just insane or very stupid. IE6 is one of the most compliant browsers ever with couple of bugfixes in IE7 beta 2 it will become the best. All these 'mox model' problems and other has been fixed in IE6 for years. It's sad people still don't know difference between standard ir quircks mode.

Change the Record!!! There is a pa(ul thu)rrott in here... There is an echo in here

I can't believe the number of people who don't think there's anything wrong with what dicrosoft is doing. You can't be that stupid. There's probably an agenda there. You people work for microsoft in some way or another. You think it's an accident that IE doesn't comply with the standards? This is a CONSCIOUS decision by microsoft to noy only monopolize the browser "market" but hijack the internet, I mean, that's a big deal people.

"Don't be silly. Saying stuff like "boycott it" just makes you look ignorant. Have you forgotten that 95% of Windows users will just get it from Windows Update and not think twice?" Actually isn't the poster of this comment the ignorant one. Paul's article is obviously designed to get people to think twice. Microsoft are market driven. They forced a particular market to accept their way of doing things and this article, rightly so, is saying we shouldn't accept that way anymore. The open source browsers such as Firefox are user experience driven. Insisting on standards compliance makes for a better experience for both users and developers. Programming has always been about using a limited set of instructions to achieve a particular result. The web standards provide those instructions for browsers. Microsoft prefer us to us their non-standard instructions so we are locked into their software, removing our choice to have the best possible user experience via other software. Why? Because user ignorance lets them. Paul's article helps highlight that there are other alternatives, better alternatives from both a developer and user perspective in his opinion and mine. More and more people are using Firefox everyday.. There is a reason for that, and if more took Paul's suggestion to boycott IE then the market would become more driven by user experience and not by Microsoft's chain on your wallet. I know which I prefer.. Posted via Firefox 8)

Rot in hell you microsoft pigs... I will personally kill you all one day...

ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ... ROT IN HELL MICROSOFT PIGS! ...

ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........ ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........ ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........ ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........ ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........ ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........ ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........ ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........ ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........ ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........ ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........ ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........ ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........ ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........ ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........ ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........ ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........ ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........ ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........ ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........ ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........ ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........ ALL THE PEOPLE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF EXPLORER ARE MICROSOFT PIGS! DIE!........

IE was Microsoft's rip off of the Netscape browser back when all Microsoft did was steal ideas from other companies. Now that they can't steal anymore, they're clueless as to what to do with their software. Don't ever use IE...and eventually get rid of your MS OS, switch to Linux or Mac

EVERYONE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF INTERNET EXPLORER ARE SREADING LIES AND MISINFORMATION! DIE! ... EVERYONE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF INTERNET EXPLORER ARE SREADING LIES AND MISINFORMATION! DIE! ... EVERYONE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF INTERNET EXPLORER ARE SREADING LIES AND MISINFORMATION! DIE! ... EVERYONE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF INTERNET EXPLORER ARE SREADING LIES AND MISINFORMATION! DIE! ... EVERYONE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF INTERNET EXPLORER ARE SREADING LIES AND MISINFORMATION! DIE! ... EVERYONE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF INTERNET EXPLORER ARE SREADING LIES AND MISINFORMATION! DIE! ... EVERYONE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF INTERNET EXPLORER ARE SREADING LIES AND MISINFORMATION! DIE! ... EVERYONE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF INTERNET EXPLORER ARE SREADING LIES AND MISINFORMATION! DIE! ... EVERYONE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF INTERNET EXPLORER ARE SREADING LIES AND MISINFORMATION! DIE! ... EVERYONE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF INTERNET EXPLORER ARE SREADING LIES AND MISINFORMATION! DIE! ... EVERYONE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF INTERNET EXPLORER ARE SREADING LIES AND MISINFORMATION! DIE! ... EVERYONE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF INTERNET EXPLORER ARE SREADING LIES AND MISINFORMATION! DIE! ... EVERYONE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF INTERNET EXPLORER ARE SREADING LIES AND MISINFORMATION! DIE! ... EVERYONE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF INTERNET EXPLORER ARE SREADING LIES AND MISINFORMATION! DIE! ... EVERYONE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF INTERNET EXPLORER ARE SREADING LIES AND MISINFORMATION! DIE! ... EVERYONE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF INTERNET EXPLORER ARE SREADING LIES AND MISINFORMATION! DIE! ... EVERYONE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF INTERNET EXPLORER ARE SREADING LIES AND MISINFORMATION! DIE! ... EVERYONE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF INTERNET EXPLORER ARE SREADING LIES AND MISINFORMATION! DIE! ... EVERYONE THAT POSTED IN FAVOUR OF INTERNET EXPLORER ARE SREADING LIES AND MISINFORMATION! DIE! ...

"Paul seems to have forgotten that MS do not make any money by selling IE, so boycotting it won't do anyone any favours." Microsoft obviously place some value on Internet Explorer or they wouldn't develop it at all. Imagine if we could run Office-like software through our web browser via a subscription-based service. If you were MS, how would you stop this from happening? Maybe by releasing a browser which gives just enough to the common people (so you don't lose marketshare), but which stops developers from innovating with new, open standards such as XHTML (can't believe IE still doesn't support that ...) and SVG. Lack of tranparency is killing this industry.

Paul is right! Congrats Paul, didn't think you had the balls. I'm a great fan of your comments but always thought you had m$-glasses on. What you say seems to me a good evaluation of ie7. Just some patchwork, no new evolution. but look at all the other softwares: vista? just xp-2nd edition, word, excel,... has anyone seen anything new under the hood? that's just the problem m$ won't tell you: they don't have anything new to sell! and the open-source community is providing alternatives fast. Peter.

"Imagine if we could run Office-like software through our web browser via a subscription-based service. If you were MS, how would you stop this from happening?" Better : or stopping not using a M$-owned subscription-based service

Monopolies are irredemiably recalcitrant; are incapable of changing their behaviour. Logical argument does not work; pleading does not work; only the big stick works. Boycott IE. Make IE irrelevant.

Oh, well - i see 13 errors and 215 warnings only when checking this site with HTML Tidy; u r using frames; and u're site need scripting - seamingly u r not boykotting IE line 2 column 4 - Warning: missing declaration line 19 column 161 - Warning: '<' + '/' + letter not allowed here line 122 column 43 - Warning: unescaped & or unknown entity "&cd" line 122 column 48 - Warning: unescaped & or unknown entity "&hv" line 122 column 53 - Warning: unescaped & or unknown entity "&ce" line 122 column 58 - Warning: unescaped & or unknown entity "&hb" line 122 column 97 - Warning: unescaped & or unknown entity "&n" line 122 column 165 - Warning: unescaped & or unknown entity "&vcon" line 122 column 197 - Warning: unescaped & or unknown entity "&seg" line 122 column 202 - Warning: unescaped & or unknown entity "&cmp" line 122 column 207 - Warning: unescaped & or unknown entity "&gp" line 122 column 211 - Warning: unescaped & or unknown entity "&fnl" line 122 column 216 - Warning: unescaped & or unknown entity "&pec" line 122 column 221 - Warning: unescaped & or unknown entity "&dcmp" line 122 column 227 - Warning: unescaped & or unknown entity "&ra" line 122 column 231 - Warning: unescaped & or unknown entity "&gn" line 122 column 235 - Warning: unescaped & or unknown entity "&cv" line 122 column 239 - Warning: unescaped & or unknown entity "&ld" line 122 column 243 - Warning: unescaped & or unknown entity "&la" line 122 column 247 - Warning: unescaped & or unknown entity "&c1" line 122 column 251 - Warning: unescaped & or unknown entity "&c2" line 122 column 255 - Warning: unescaped & or unknown entity "&c3" line 122 column 259 - Warning: unescaped & or unknown entity "&c4" line 122 column 263 - Warning: unescaped & or unknown entity "&vpc" line 121 column 1 - Warning: isn't allowed in elements line 247 column 8 - Warning: missing

I hate Microsoft for a bunch of reasons, but this article is just plain stupid! Boycott a free web browser? Everybody with the will of doing it are already running Firefox, and will not switch to IE without major reasons. In the actual IE, apart from security reasons, the only major trouble I had in web development is the bad handling of transparent PNGs. IE to support non-standard features? It's a web developer work to keep is't site sandardized, not microsoft's one! Use Safari instead? Safari is so full of bugs (still haven't tried Tiger's version, talking about 1.3) that even Apple claims it is "experimental". You'd keep your mouth shout if you don't know what you are talking about, Mr. Paul!

idiot

Thurott as dumb as ever! Try http://www.webstandards.org/act/acid2/test_1-1.html with FireFox 1.0.6 you idiot!!!!

My previous comment was spammed! This site add ads to word like "security", and you are talking about Microsoft's bad habits... You've got a -10 trust bonus!

Hey Paul, do you really think Firefox Is more secure than I.E.? Firefox has had 17 security Issues In 2005, while Internet Explorer has had 9 In 2005. Firefox 1.0 was released on November 9 of 2004, all builds before that were betas. (Preview Builds) Firefox had 4 security Issues In 2004. (Two months) Firefox - 2005 http://secunia.com/product/4227/#advisories_2005 Internet Explorer - 2005 http://secunia.com/product/11/#advisories_2005 It could be said that firefox Is more secure than I.E because so few people use Firefox, But Firefox Is NOT a better built browser. I've used every browser their Is, and Firefox Is by far the worst browser I have used on my Windows and Linux systems.

"It's a web developer work to keep is't site sandardized, not microsoft's one!" Indeed it's the web developers work to keep is't site standardized TO THE STANDARDS, not microsoft's one!

I think the point here is that Microsoft tried to Hijack the web to their own standards so they could make money out of it. They should have realised that the world doesn't want a single global corporation setting the standards for them. It takes all developers world wide to contribute to such an important development. Now things are going against them, they are going to be in real trouble as market share increases for browsers that support somthing useful like tabbed browsing. I like many web developers are tired of trying to get the look, feel and functionality of my websites correct on every browser on the market. Browsers should be competing on security and functionality NOT on compatibility.

Anti-MS propaganda...

Paul Turdott and all w3c zealots have found one another! Go on, make your own private StandarNet, I'll stick to the Internet where DOCTYPE is not always necessary (at least Paul comlies with all them w3c standards). Oh, and all good sites render good in all browsers, web designers who make pictures with CSS, poition elements pixel-tight with CSS and make everything else in CSS are NOT web designers, they're your geeks-designer-wannabes. No designer in his right mind would make an ugly CSS-based site. check out major designer agencies sites (major, not "BobFirefoxRulz Design" made by his guru 19 year-old Dave Unixen). Standards are standard, not w3c-invented (even ISO chill here); Paul is polluting the air with his breath for nothing. Internet is inter, net and non-standard, shall always be so. Mark my words, Paul.

Agree 100%. Developing websites and always hacking and tweeking for the IE users is hell. I can't understand why they don't implement all the standards. They are clearly written down, so all they need is to out them in the IE code. But on the other hand, its fun to watch all the angry discussions about this issue. But its not fun to work, cause the IE causes more houres at work.

IE has always been exploitable and always will be as long as it is a "closed source" project.Great article and keep up the great work and revealing just how exploitable Microsoft products are over all!.Each day that Microsoft refuses to allow others to help them work on the program's security is just another day the "open source" community looks better over all and draws people away from Microsoft's closed mindedness of their programing they force on people at large! Long live open source programing!

I allready started boycotting IE when firefox 0.9 came out. Since i started using Firefox and Opera i've never had any problems with viruses of trojan horses. And as i can see IE7 does'nt offer anything new, just tabs and a phishing filter thats does'nt seem to do much. --- http://bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.

I hope they will become standard compliant - but I dont think so. They have Avalon instead of SVG, XForms, ... They will not support the W3C standards like SVG, XForms, ... Its a political reason why they do not use standards - no technical reason. They try to bind the customers to their products. They want to earn as much as possible (= capitalism).

Totally agree, I hate having to write hacks so that my code displays properly in IE.

This article seems to come from a non-user perspective. I like IE. I use IE. Why should I give a crap if it doesn't follow standards. If you build a website figure it out. If you don't want to, fine. Don't expect me to visit. I can see the user is the not the focal point in this entire discussion.

Okay... let's travel back in time and prevent good old Bill from ever writting MS DOS in the first place... Probably that was not a standard too... God knows where we would be today... Let's ride the bull..

What I find amazing is the number of comments from people who have no idea what it takes to develop a standards-compliant website. They fail to realise the full scale of the work involved having to hack standards-compliant code so that the site isn't broken in IE. I design for Firefox first, and then fix the IE errors afterward. I found this to be a much easier solution than the other way round.

Bottom line. The 'Web' has long past the "standards" stage when it comes to site development. They're on standard what now? HTML 4? No wait, XHTML 1 ? No, either that site uses Macromedia Flash standard to render its content. A moving target of standards, competing interests, competing companies, competing agendas, millions or billions of people involved. You're going to get a lot of different things going on. And the cloesest thing that you will ever come to a standard the current popular browser or plain vanilla HTML.

Great to see there are still people recognizing the importance of standards (the real standards, not the MS ones)

http is dead anyway..

Linux is for geeks.

I really think your being kinda harsh for something that is Beta 1. Not to mention that those other browsers haven't passed the Acid tests either according to a news.com article. "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." Personally if someone wants to use IE or Firefox it's their business and none of yours. Next time you feel like bashing something and recomending that I use something else, you should know what the heck you are talking about. Before you call me a Microsoft Fanboy I use firefox. So what it boils down too is you need to get your facts straight.

I think calling for a boycott while the latest product is in Beta to be alittle early, let alone that the public beta release is not scheduled for several months. Aren't you jumping the gun here?

"I think calling for a boycott while the latest product is in Beta to be alittle early, let alone that the public beta release is not scheduled for several months. Aren't you jumping the gun here?" We are all old enough to make up our own minds, if one opinion is to boycott, then so be it. Mr Thurrott is only giving what he thinks is an educated opinion based on the info he has. pIE 7 --- I would eat it.

How can i boycot Microsoft and still get people to use my site. After all .. the way to make money on the 'net' is to get as many people as possible to my site. If most morons use IE unfortunatelly id rather code 50% more time than loose 80% of my customers. Unfortunately for most of you posting here.. some people do not only use the web to post their useless opinions on blogs. We have families to take care of and cant worry about risking that for some idealistic cause. Becuase of this IE will remain for years as the cheif source of web developers nightmares.

I checked the acid2 website. Frankly, it sounds more like a bunch of PO'd web designers than a standards group.. Oh, yeah, that's because they are a bunch of PO'd web designers and not a standards group. Those guys and Thurrott have as much validity as me boycotting Firefox because it doesn't make me toast.

STANDARDS? What is a standard? Is it a piece of paper some people have written, or is it "the way most people do things?" BY ANY MEASURE, having the 90+% market share, internet explorer IS THE STANDARD, SETS THE STANDARD. So, in my view - we should get upset at Firefox for not supporting the "ie standards", because as someone who uses both knows (and you all know) - there are a lot more pages that have problems with firefox than with IE. But I just loved the comment above - "Microsoft has hijacked the web". Well.. I've been a software developer for more years than I care to count, my first exposure to computers was teletyping in to a MULTICS system... and let me tell you. I can only think of one good think about our industry that has ever come from a published "standard" (and that is JPEG) - but engage your brains people.. technological improvement doesn't happen by a bunch of industry "leaders" getting together and hammering out a proposed way of doing what we are currently doing.... almost every leap forward in the computer industry has come from some kids just sitting down and doing something new and innovative - which someone else copies, changes, and hopefully improves. Internet explorer is where it is because at one point many years ago - it offered much more than it's competitors. Everyone tried Netscape as well.. IE was just a better browser. So we chose it. When MS built it, they had a right to do whatever they wanted - they were the developers. If we didn't like it, we wouldn't use it. It wasn't changed for a while, people started wanting more, and now a lot of us are using Firefox. Because it "supports standards"? you have to be ****ing kidding. We are using it because it has tabs,plugins, it's faster and, lets face it, it looks better. Developers have a right to build whatever they want. If MS thinks of a new feature that they think will add benefit to their customers, they SHOULD put it in. It's our choice whether to use it

"Apple Safari (Macintosh only) and Opera 8 are both worth considering as well." HAVE YOU EVER USED SAFARI??? Its poor rendering quality and inaccuracy is infamous between web designers. What a surprise.

"No designer in his right mind would make an ugly CSS-based site"????? I AM a designer, graduated in Milano's most important design university, and can assure you that you don't know anything of what you are talking about!! Try to put up a content management system without CSS, if you can! Sure, you can, you just need to triple your efforts!!! And ANY serious site is based on a CMS. I mean, USEFUL sites, not web gallerys built by professional-looking morons, even if they have a big name!!

I couldn't agree more with your argument to boycott IE 7. I am a web developer, and it is an absolute nightmare to develop for multiple browsers simply because IE does things its own way. I can write (and have written on many occasions) a standards-compliant page that passes validation tests, looks good, and works 100% in all other browsers with which I test (Firefox, Safari, Camino, Opera, Netscape, all on Mac and Windows if available). But, when I test the page in IE, it looks awful and basically doesn't work, which means I have to redo part of the design and introduce multiple non-standard IE hacks just to get the page to look right. Like I said, it's a nightmare. Why stop at boycotting IE 7? Why not boycott the sites that require a user to be running IE to even view them at all? I realize this isn't always practical or even possible in some cases, but as long as Microsoft is promoting proprietary functionality in its browser, there will be developers that use that functionality (which isn't always bad, unless users are required to run a specific browser to view the site). For sites that require IE but don't use any proprietary functionality, it's comparable to a gas station that will only pump gas into Ford vehicles, even though other vehicles use the same gas. Microsoft is slowing innovation of one of the most promising technologies in the world: the web.

Standards are important. Those of us who have seen the internet form up over the last 20-30 years have seen it. Standards are what got us to where we are, have you forgotten? Or maybe some of you are just not old enough to remember...

[quote] STANDARDS? What is a standard? Is it a piece of paper some people have written, or is it "the way most people do things?" [/quote] Actually a standard is officially something delcared by the International Organization for Standardization. The web "standards" put forth by the W3C are "recommendations". They say so right out. But it must be said. It was established almost in the beginning, web browsers are free. There are *few* exceptions. Perhaps it isn't worth MS's time to work on a product that doesn't generate income. If thats the case STOP WRITING A BROWSER. Maybe I'm out of touch but I've never understood why it was necessary to upgrade windows through a browser.

Published standards never did anything useful? How about TCP UDP FTP SNMP just to name a few networking protocols some of which your post would not be possible without. Just check the RFC site. Theres a few thousand that might be considered "good."

As a person working for Web Services of a University that must test for compliance and standards in all browsers ... you are correct. TO ALL THOSE saying he should be a "web techie" to make such claims and boycott calls ... maybe YOU should question your own education if you don't even know what he is talking about. IE has failed us several times to be compliant with web standards of technology, and it seems that IE7 will be no different. Test after test our University has come to be more appreciative of Firefox, Safari, and now even Opera for trying to upgrade their browsers so that users can easily and correctly see WELL MADE WEBSITES. And aside from that, any website that does not cross-browser test their pages obviously don't know a thing about marketability, functionality, or accessibility.

Paul wrote "Boycott IE. It's a cancer on the Web that must be stopped" Phew! That's pretty harsh. I guess Microsoft must be treating Paul like the no account dweeb he is for him to have such a temper tantrum. My advice: stick with IE. Microsoft rules!

All the important stuff I do on the Web (research, banking, shopping) can be done with Firefox. If a site insists I use IE, it's not worth pursuing. I only use IE on my intranet at work. I've been doing this for nearly 3 years and my on-line life feels in no way impoverished!

My advice is simple: Boycott Paul Thurrott. He's an insane on the WindowsITPro.com that must be laid off.

Have a nice journey in your boycott, take some movies or something so you don't get lonely.

I'm all for a boycott. Some people are mentioning the fact that it is the web designers responsibility to code a standards-compliant website and that it is not Microsofts fault if the designer chooses not to. This is all fine and dandy, but MS has been creating software that builds websites in a non-compliant way. The developers test these sites with IE and when they work, they don't do any more testing. Little do they know that these MS apps create sites for MS products only. Now MS is in a bind - they developed software that created non-compliant sites for their non-compliant software. They were the only game in town so this was "allowed." Now there are real developers making real browsers that are trying to adhere to the standards (so no matter which browser you choose, on whichever OS, the content will be available), and MS is in a pickle. Do they keep going the route they have been going and rely on their browser staying number one? This will only last until the awareness of the general population grows enough to realize that MS is trying to control the internet. Then MS takes a dive as everyone switches to another browser. They could do that, or they could make their browser standards-compliant and **** off all of the developers that have (unknowingly?) been contributing to the mess that is the WWW by using Microsoft tools. They are going to have to do this eventually, so get to it!

I think this whole thing is silly. Lets do some math here. If roughly 90% of web viewing is done through the IE browser than it only makes sence that they set the standard. It's funny how a group of people and/or companies get together, create a "standard" and all together add up to just 10% of non-IE browsing. In reality, business dictates standards, not techincal righteousness.

Yes, let's all boycott IE. Ha ha ha ha ha! As if the rest of the world gives a flying fcku. 99% of everybody will just carry on using IE, and you'll all carry on developing for it. Or maybe change career and become lumberjacks or something. Go and cut down trees in a standard way.

I developed a totally standards-compliant site that renders beautifully and as intended in Safari, Opera, Camino, Firefox and OmniWeb. All without a hitch. Unfortunately, in Win IE 6 and Mac IE5, font and graphic rendering, as well as page layout, is poor. The only solution is to spend lots of time hacking CSS and HTML code to isolate and find workarounds for those browsers' problems. A real pain, both effort-wise and from a cost standpoint. Microsoft certainly can't be worried about cost. Think about it: If it invested in developing a fully standards-compliant browser that's fast, secure and passes even the toughest acid tests, no one would complain. They'd all flock to it. IE is like the abandoned building off the freeway that used to be a landmark for everyone who passed by, but is now gray, decrepit and depressing to look at -- an eyesore. The continued development of competing browsers and their use will be the only thing that'll compel Microsoft to shake off the barnacles and get to work revamping its white elephant.

What a dorky article - I regret commenting because all this attention is only going to encourage more outright dorkiness. Is this cnet? PCMag? How about you actually use IE7 and provide feedback and work with Microsoft to make it a better product for core usage scenarios. In case you've been too intent studying your navel, Microsoft has turned on a dime to get IE7 out the door and is intensely interested in being transparent regarding what it's doing and soliticing feedback about what's *most important* for real users. The Acid Test? Please. Supporting any more boroque standards being chugged out by W3C? Stop now. That's the issue. Not Microsoft.

I hate ignorance. Firefox has plenty of holes to exploit. In fact, if I was teaching people how to exploit both Firefox and Explorer, it would be easier to create a lesson on hacking Firefox; a pure novice could learn how. What do you want from a Beta 1 version? I don't expect to see everything functioning in the first release candidate. The first Beta really isn't suppose to be a functioning version for critics to make a decision about. It's mostly to be used for initial look, feel and development considerations. Last thing. Don't complain about something which is free. Opinions are plentiful.

a german friend of my boycott IE since he redesign his site. go with IE to http://goetze.ch (or other pages) and you will redirect to http://goetze.ch/wrongWB/ ... with a backround song and only a picture with text. why? because with IE his pages looks misarrange.

Mozilla doesn't take ages to start up if you change the icon's target to: "C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe" /prefetch:1

I think (not something I'm used to) that the web developers could help the change. They could do this by coding pages that work for both IE and everyone else, but on the IE pages, indicate that the code is different because of incompatibilities with IE.

IT'S OFFICIAL--WINDOWS ONLY GOOD FOR VIDEOGAMES AND WEB-SURFING Microsoft's own studies in developing Longhorn showed that the #1 and #2 uses of Windows were, respectively, browsing the web and playing games. For real computing, using a Mac. #1 - 33% of Windows usage is browsing the web #2 - 18% of Windows usage is game-playing #3 and #4 - Doing e-mail and using the shell were tied at 9% Windows--For playing videogames, like The Sims. Macs--for getting real work done. No wonder Apple's sales are skyrocketing and their stock price is more than double Microsoft's.

IT'S OFFICIAL--WINDOWS ONLY GOOD FOR VIDEOGAMES AND WEB-SURFING Microsoft's own studies in developing Longhorn showed that the #1 and #2 uses of Windows were, respectively, browsing the web and playing games. For real computing, using a Mac. #1 - 33% of Windows usage is browsing the web #2 - 18% of Windows usage is game-playing #3 and #4 - Doing e-mail and using the shell were tied at 9% Windows--For playing videogames, like The Sims. Macs--for getting real work done. No wonder Apple's sales are skyrocketing and their stock price is more than double Microsoft's.

IT'S OFFICIAL--WINDOWS ONLY GOOD FOR VIDEOGAMES AND WEB-SURFING Microsoft's own studies in developing Longhorn showed that the #1 and #2 uses of Windows were, respectively, browsing the web and playing games. For real computing, using a Mac. #1 - 33% of Windows usage is browsing the web #2 - 18% of Windows usage is game-playing #3 and #4 - Doing e-mail and using the shell were tied at 9% Windows--For playing videogames, like The Sims. Macs--for getting real work done. No wonder Apple's sales are skyrocketing and their stock price is more than double Microsoft's.

yawn

Hehehe... é isso aí! Mas, o firefox tem que melhorar muito. Muitas páginas feitas em Flash não abrem legal com o Firefox.

Firefox is the best. All flash websites work very well in Firefox. It's only a plugin, it doesn't matters! As a devoloper, I totally agree with Paul. Web developement its a nightmare with IE in the market. I don't hate MS at all, but now I hate MSIE. Some websites 100% XHTML doesn't work well in IE. And what about JavaScript? We're programming twice: for Netscape, Mozilla, Firefox, Opera and for IE. What a hell!

For years they have done their own thing and look what it has caused, an argument that has raged, and will rage, many years. I personally try to code first for Standards compliant browsers (ie I code XHTML and CSS as Standards designate). Then I add in the extra "fixes" for IE. I also don't use IE on my computers unless I absolutely have to (mainly for testing code).

IE is a pain for web developers. I used to work with it. If you use IE, you will spend a lot of time to make everything working for others browsers. That's because IE is full of bugs, and your bugging website will work only with IE. Now, if you don't use IE at all, you will see that you will be making better web code. Maybe bugs free. Tips for web developers: do not use IE. Because some users do not use Windows, so can't use IE. Means websites build with IE and made to work only with it are not "portable". Indeed, if your website is not working with IE, you can say to everyone to "use anything else" and it will work. You can trust Mr Hoover!

Do you have a Banner/Logo for "boycott IE 7". I would like to put it on my website. Surely others, too

I.E. is not secure? Unfortunately, neither are any of the other browsers out there. While I agree with most everything that has been said, doesn't anyone get tired of Microsoft-bashing?

How can anyone boycott IE7 - it's not out yet except as a limited availability beta ?? Besides, the Microsoft people are saying they are trying to make it as standards compliant as they can.

The only browser I boycott is Firefox [more security holes than Swiss cheese].

I look at it this way. Any company that makes it's desktop into a web browser has no intention of creating a secure and stable system in the end. If you look at the structure of XP and later designs of windows you will find the foundation of the whole paladmium computing initiative allready there in place and waiting for yet another layer of integration to hide it before they implement your own computer as a remote website with remote desktop that has to phone home in order to give you permission to use your own computer. The end result is that all file transfers go through the web browser so ant thing you do is a network access. Then you no longer even own your own computer. The IE updates are just a step in this chain of events. Upgrade(?) at your own risk.

Sorry, but you can develop websites and web apps that work 100% equally in both IE and FF. All this talk about how you can't do both is rubbish. Just because you know how to use DreamWeaver and FrontPlague doesn't make you an expert on all things web.

I can't believe how many posts there are saying that Fiefox is insecure compared to IE. How many times has IE been patched? It's five years old, and they're still finding holes!

"My advice is simple: Boycott IE. It's a cancer on the Web that must be stopped." I need say nothing more...

I say Boycott Windows and move to a real OS Linux! Now the lamers with the IQ's of around 70 can chime in..

This sounds like a rant from a child rather than an article about the IE beta. I was really disappointed. Furthermore, you suggested that the beta should be released to the public. Wow! Are you a web developer? There is nothing worse than having browser betas creap into the hands of the public.

I guess my question is this...why would any web developer develop content to function properly on only 15% of the computers in the world? If I were a web dev, and when I develop for fun, I don't even bother with the other products. Imagine if you will a company making an automotive product that only worked for ferraris and porsches, and then complaining because it didn't work on the millions of PontiChevOldsmobuilacs on the road. Don't make a lot of sense to me. And lets face it, I'm not sure of the numbers but I imagine that somewhere in the 80% range of all desktop/laptop computers are running a Microsoft OS, then they already have IE anyway. I guess I don't understand the problem here since I'm not a web dev, but from a business point of view, the logic doesn't work out. If my company made websites, standards be darned...they will work with IE, or they won't go out the door.

Boycott Paul Thurrot's WinInfo website because there are 13 errors and 217 warnings in it's HTML source code (found by tidy). Cheers.

The analogy would be more like... if you had standards, methods and machines to build high quality parts for Ferraris and Porsches, but had to hand-make all of the parts for the mass-produced car makers cause they used something other than standards. And the other format they use is inconsistent to its own guidelines every couple of model years. You should all eye up discussions on www.alistapart.com or the musings of Jeff Zeldman at www.zeldman.com to get a clearer look at these issues. An easy-to-understand read for those who aren't quite clear of the whole argument and why it's been going on so long. Not a slight by any means, it's just useful to see it outside of an OS/ Tech debate. BTW... I will gladly try out IE 7 in full form (I build standards-compliant sites, so I have to anyway) whenever Vista really ends up shipping. But if there's more hacks or even a sizable chunk that remains, I will certainly be on the offensive side of this issue. No excuses can be forwarded at this point.

Hey man, are you serious? Boycotte MS products? And be ignored by 90% of the planet? Ok, go ahead, I'll get your customers and your money, great, I like your attitude...

You piece of ****! The IE is the only browser that works, and you want to ruin it also ...

Hey man, are you serious? Boycotte MS products? And be ignored by 90% of the planet? Ok, go ahead, I'll get your customers and your money, great, I like your attitude... 90% of the planet? WRONG. Most figures published are US only, and even then it's around 85%+. Some countries in Europe, Firefox is up to 30%+ usage. Once Firefox crosses 10% in the US (and it will), it's a mainstream browser.

Yes, it would have been nice if well-formed standards existed before the proprietary arsenals of internet superpowers had dominated the internet, but hey, people in Hell want pina coladas. If 80-90% of the web sites worldwide are not compatible with Acid2 now, then please don't be shocked when the world turns its back on Acid2 with IE7's release. The world doesn't work that way. What will you well-intentioned people do when this standard goes the way of the dodo? Invest in a new one? You'll keep running into the same problem over and over: 80-90% of us aren't ready to build everything all over again. This is an unwinnable approach. I'm not a Microsoft fan, but aren't you IE-bashers missing the point? You're fighting for that 10-20% that remains. If's it's that important to you, then go ahead and keep up the fight! But stop whining! It only shows Microsoft how much you hate losing!

Dear Paul, I used to read your columns almost religiously because there was occasionally useful information and a chuckle or two but lately it seems everything you manage to spout off about makes you look like a complete dweeb. As an industry insider/pundit/whatever you call yourself you owe it too your readers to be more professional than this crap! Do you write this crud because you've nothing better to write about or do you just like to see your words in print? If so please go write for someone else because you do a real disservice to IT Pro Magazine. I would love it if Microsoft would support all the standards--I think they should. I've been plenty ****** off at the corporate arrogance in the past but I keep using their products because I like them. At least now the company seems to be listening to developers and end users and I like it a lot! I'm happy that progress is being made and no I don't like having to wait for it but that's life and it's better late than never--I do have plenty of other things to keep me busy while I wait. I read IT Pro for good informative articles that help me do my job not this kind of BS. All I can really ask is, "Please stop." Stick to reporting the facts in an objective fashion and stop taking yourself so seriously. I don't want to stop reading IT Pro because of the very same arrogance of some of the columnists that we've accused Microsoft of. Bottom line, if you really don't like it buy yourself another Mac and write for MacAddict or someone else... You're really starting to sound like Mark Gibbs and Steve Gibson. Maybe the the three of you could get together and compare egos. --Greg Wojan I apologize for the ego crack but this entire topic touched a nerve.

Sorry if this has been posted before but does this guy realise that Firefox doesn't pass the Acid2 test either? Don't believe me, then check for yourself!

"Microsoft will never support standards but BREAK them." Someone said that about DNS required for Active Directory. Oops. - Written in IE7 - Paul is no longer relevant in the IT world.

"My advice is simple: Boycott IE." Nice one Paul, the extinction of IE would be a huge sigh of relief for web developers the world over. If IE7 isn't a vast improvement on 6 then Microsoft is mearly prolonging our agony.. If i didn't have to make sure all my sites worked equally well in IE then I could probably save myself several hours a week in development time. Not to mention all the great things you can do with CSS on standards compliant browsers that IE doesn't support.. At the end of the day everyone loses out, but what can one do?

somehow i agree with paul people here are just mad in the fact that he said something bad against m$

Since MS has 95% of the browser market, I think it would make a lot more sense to boycott the other browsers . I'm speaking as a web develop whou couldn't give a s..t about which browse wins this war, BUT: - IE will NEVER dissapear from the market, for most people IE = Web Browser, just like many people think Pentium = CPU. Since IE will never go away, I'd rather get rid of all the other browsers out there and stick with only one platform. - it's just as easy to write code that works on IE or on Firefox or any other browser for that matter - IE is free, other browsers are commercial, even Firefox will sooner rather than later go comercial (Netscape was based on Mozilla and it was a rather expensive product) For me, the biggest problem is trying to write code that works on ANY browser and my life would be a lot easier if IE will finally take full control of the internet. Of course, there is another solution, IE will lose all of its marketshare ... But everybody knows that it's never going to happen, so why bother trying ... PS 1. It's funny how people complain that IE is not standard compliant ... In my opinion it;s the standards that are not IE complaint. Those people creating the standards SHOULD HAVE CONSULTED Microsoft before writing them down, because MS was the market leader. Many people think that standards are some kind of universal truths, like a mathematical theorem. They're not, they're just a common point of view on how things should be done. 2. As for security, most people don't fall because of IE bugs, they fall out of their own stupidity, at this moment the number one problem in internet security is phishing which has nothing to do with IE or Windows ...

Internet Explorer needs an occasional patch. Firefox needs a whole slew of new patches every month. So many in fact they have to come out with a new release almost every five weeks. IE is basically secured with only an occasional patch necessary any more. Firefox is full of unpatched holes. It is not a secure browser by a long shot. I wouldn't run it.

"My advice is simple: Boycott Paul Thurott. He's a cancer on the Web that must be stopped. HE isn't coherent and isn't standards-compliant, which makes it useless both for interested readers and people that are not in full posession of the facts. Because of his user bases, however, readers are rallied into boycotting IE at the expense of established standards of journalism that work well on all other sites. You can turn the tide by demanding more from Paul Thurott and by using a better alternative news site. I recommend and use Bink.nu by Steven Bink, but MSDN Blogs (by Microsoft employees only) and NeoWin are both worth considering as well."

A lot of people that writes comments don't know anything about the argument, before write try to develop a web page *after* having read the *official* documentation that can be found at http://www.w3c.org/, thanks.

You anti-IE bastards are hysterical. You find problems with a browser that commands over 90% of the market. Hey, dorktards, if Firefox ever reached a high market percentage (it will never of course, as its a hack at best) you will find just as many, if not more problems. Get a life.

The real problem in web development is not developing pages that work in IE or that work in Firefox- it's developing standards compliant pages that appear the same in both browsers. When you develop a standards compliant page using HTML (or XHTML) and CSS and display said page in each browser the compliance shortcomings of IE are obvious. As for those who say that 'IE works perfectly well for them, what's the big deal' well, that's great that it works for you. Of course you've obviously never done any serious web development, either. I'm not surprised that IE7 doesn't fully support CSS- I agree with others here that they have no intentions of doing so. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to see them get even further away from standards compliance in an effort to take the Internet private and impose a toll on every packet. Think that can't happen? Maybe it can't but I wouldn't be amazed to see Microsoft, who's corporate ego is only slightly smaller than the planet Redmond sits on, give it a try.

Huzzah! Linux and Opera forever! (And Firefox & Mac too, of course!)

"I'm not surprised that IE7 doesn't fully support CSS- I agree with others here that they have no intentions of doing so. " Please ignore what Thurrott is writing. He's an idiot. There is plenty of evidence to say the exact opposite of your statement. Here's what Chris Wilson, IE Team lead said about BETA2 a few days before Thurrott failed to research a piece again... http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx And they are working well with webstandards.org

What's with this call for boycott when IE7.0 is still in BETA 1? Save your judgement for when it's finally released. Baseless speculation on what the final product's going to look like is just plain stupid. Or are you just afraid that you won't be able to do your MS bashing once the final product is ready? *TSK* *TSK*.. such a biased article... such an unprofessional journalist

Firefox doesn't pass the Acid2 test either so maybe we should boycott that too. Better yet, boycott Paul Thurrott's BS histrionics about an early beta for a product that he'd hate no matter what.

Ok, this is how i feel about this. I like IE, yes there are probs, but i havnt had one problem. it is quicker then firefox and other browsers. firefox is nice, but some sites dont even come up correctly in it, or for that fact other browsers. reading this article there was a part. "Wilson's post raises some serious questions about IE 7.0, not the least of which is this: If IE 7.0 Beta 1 doesn't include the fixes that most Web developers need, why did Microsoft release IE 7.0 Beta 1 only to a small group of Web developers and other testers, not to the general public as originally promised?" for the fact THEY ARE TESTING IT!!! geez its a beta test, they are getting things correct.. look at linux or others, its not perfect, like hackers, why do they go for windows.. cause its the MAIN OS OUT THERE! duh.. i have been a microsoft fan for a while, and yes i do like linux and others as well. but come on give em a break, let em fix it then critize it.. relax, chill, get a coffee or something. when it all comes out.. things will need to be fixed.. but its not bad. the ONLY complaint i have about IE is when you wanna open a new window it "shrinks" it.. i want it full screen, and .. it takes up to much resources.. but oh well i can deal.. so can others.. relax and let them figure it out!

Here's a puzzle; try to determine which posts are from Microsoft shills and fanboys! If Microsoft *can't* make IE fully standards compliant then they don't deserve our business. If Microsoft *won't* make IE fully standards compliant then they are treating their userbase as pawns for some stupid software strategy.

As far as i can tell the web sites that are not compliant are coded that way because of IE and the fact 80% give or take a few of web surfers use IE. So instead of blaming the websites and webmasters it is M$'s fault. so i mean boycotting and forcing M$ to acctually spend money on improving and correcting thier mistakes seems like a good idea to me. Its quite obvious M$ has grown so large that they seem to feel they are above doing what is right and what should be done instead of penny pinching.then again the rich stay rich because they are cheap oh well either way ive done my part i havnt used IE since windows 95.

OH and for the M$ fanboys all i can say is this can you trust a company who tried to introduce The Trustworthy computing act and they are not meeting compliance because they never have IE 7 beta or not is just another link in the chain of microsoft's halfassed software line. IE sucked before and obviously still will untill the users stop being afraid to try something else

As profesional webdesigner I spend almost 1/3 of my time to get everything in IE. IE simply wastes my time over and over again.

So now we need an ACID2 compliant browser to surf the web? And just what do you suggest we use, Paul? Just like Paul being a journalist, whose goal is to have readers read his articles and generate revenue, regardless on how much the article complies with the truth; as a developer, my goal is to have as many end-users reach the sites I design, regardless of how compliance and standards go. As much as perhaps a morally sound journalist would like to report the full truth (boring it may be, thus no revenue), I'd like to bash MS on it's non-compliance - I find that boycotting IE7 as a developer quite useless. Unless my end-users boycott MS products, a developer boycotting an MS product is just unrealistic. We all live in the real world after all.

Paul, read the IE blog, you are definately not good informed. Making blunt unprofessional statements like this and comparing IE to a cancer is what suits an amateur journalist. But I am guessing you never noticed the increasing amount of security bulletins from the other browsers now that they gathered 1% more share.

By how far shall we (the developers) be exploiting the latest features present in CSS 2. Some have not even fully exploit the features present in the preceding versions...

"Try http://www.webstandards.org/act/acid2/test_1-1.html" I've tried it with Firefox 1.0.4. The resulting page is deformed, but the word "error" does not appear means that it passed half of this test. Read the source of the page. It stated what the purpose of the test is. The only test it isn't passed is to render the PNG image encoded in object tag to "image".

IE sucks, take the bloody box model as an example, winblows just do their own politics thats all it is, and thats all it will be. Since i migrate all the servers of the company to Linux, I am only letting some workstations using w2k and they all use Firefox. And now I nedd half of the resources of what i use to.. (HW), THeres no need to go very far away coding CSS to determine that IE just doesn't show the information the way the rest of the browsers does, and thats not the users fault, thats just not following the standards. Whoever wants to keep using IE, fine, fair enough, but i wont let my machines compromise on being infected with spam and spyware

i did 2 years of professional web development, and let me tell you mozilla and safari have just as many "interesting rendering quirks" as internet explorer. don't get me wrong - IE is another one of microsoft's "embrace, extend and extinguish"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish) attempts and is therefore contemptible and wrong and should definately be boycotted. but in the meantime, it is totally possible to write a standards compliant, accessible website that also renders correctly in IE. We used to do all our sites in PHP, and we used to detect the browser, and correct any output that was incompatible with the detected browser. You can even do it with flat HTML pages, by using javascript to adjust the page. In my experience the adjustments needed are trivial. You just have to care enough to put the little bit of extra effort in, which is what M$ don't want you to do. They want you to do it their way, and eliminate their competition for them. But don't worry, time is running out for M$. As long as they dont find a way to make Open Source illegal, it is only a matter of time before they and their disgusting business practices are rendered irrevocably obsolete.

The fact that IE standarts support is so outdated (years!!), makes web developers waste time (and money) with awful workarounds. You don't need to be a Penguin cealot to understand it. After so much time without IE updates I expected quite better standart support. Aren't standarts as important as security flaws? IE7 features tabs, search bar, security fixes and a few css patchs... I wait for quite more from the next beta.

"BY ANY MEASURE, having the 90+% market share, internet explorer IS THE STANDARD, SETS THE STANDARD" Not really. Microsoft is one of the major participant/member of W3C. If Microsoft have agreed it's "standard", there's no reason it's not "standard". If there's anything in W3C standard that Microsoft doesn't like, Microsoft should have banned it to be "part of standard". And if Microsoft is involved in the formation of "standard" and doesn't follow "standard", then Microsoft is to one to be blamed. The logic is clear: If you have agreed something to be "rule of the game" and doesn't follow the rule when you're playing the game. You're the one to be blamed but not the others.

"I hate ignorance. Firefox has plenty of holes to exploit. In fact, if I was teaching people how to exploit both Firefox and Explorer, it would be easier to create a lesson on hacking Firefox; a pure novice could learn how." Maybe. But don't forget Firefox is just an application but IE is built as a core part of the OS. Security holes in the core part of system is far more likely to ruin the system than any other application. The level of security required is just different.

Well, I as Web Developer can assure that if none would use IE, programming would be heaven-like to us. Making a good looking, standard-compliant site would be a one day job actually, but now I need to search for hacks and workarounds for IE bugs what take 70% of time I use for creating a site. And even if IE wouldn't have all the rendering bugs, it doesn't even have standard things, what makes it quite impossible to make cross-browser very nice looking site. I am always recommending everyone I can to use Firefox or Opera, but not to use IE, though it should be world-wide developers action. You know it makes me pretty nervous, when it takes 2 hours to make 100x100 pixels site part look same in all browsers.

I work for a web development firm - all my developers like to work in Firefox but 95% of the USERS of our sites are from corporations or public sector organisations with IE installed. So we can't ignore IE and have to develop for that - adds to development time and cost for the customer and makes it very frustrating for the team. We advocate the use of Firefox and extoll it's virtues where we can - but boycott IE? No an option

A Standard, is that what the most users use. And the World.. they Use IE, so that is the standard. So Stop Whining about that acid test, It's a nice to have but there are better things in this world, to do than that :-) -- tser/tser.org

This is the only reply post to the article by an offical registered reader. Being so, this is the only reply post so far of any merit. Where is your head Mr. Paul Thurrott !? Boycott IE ! Why !? The guys at Microsoft have said they are trying to bring the browser close to web "standards". I take it they mean the current W3C standards for HTML, cascading style sheets and JavaScript/JScript/EXCMAScript. There are innumerable other internet standards from W3C. I suppose divine intervention would enable a group to design an Internet software package that could meet them all. Internet Explorer 7 is being designed to be much more compliant. It's already a good browser [speedy, renders well, pleasant to use, many features, increasing security, hardened code base]. So you can't be calling for a boycott based on the browser's ability to render web pages. If you are calling for a boycott because it doesn't meet the "standard[s]" completely then why isn't www.windowsitpro.com completely compliant? It seems it isn't much of a concern where you work? At leasst at Microsoft they're saying: 'Our intent is to build a platform that fully complies with the appropriate Web standards, in particular CSS 2' So what gives, Mr. Paul? Your call for a boycott seems a bit hypocritical, doesn't it?

IE SUXX!!! Microsoft knows it very well, but they won't do anything to change it 'till they will receive money for it or more than 50% of people will NOT use IE. I completely agree with Thurrott - BOYCOTT MICRO$OFT!!!

Sorry to have to state the obvious, but those of you defending MS please remember that with its enormous wealth, if it so wanted it could easily make IE 7 standards compliant, and those web sites that use IE specific features would just be rewritten. However it clearly suits their purpose not to do so, as it is one more thing locking us poor saps into IE & Windows. That is why Mr Thurrott (who is not a knee jerk MS basher by any count!) made his request to boycott IE 7.

http://www.windowsitpro.com/windowspaulthurrott/ = 270 Errors. Any questions?

Paul, you're an idiot. It's BETA for crying out loud. Why would anyone listen to this idiot, tech. wannabe. Grow some pubes, idiot.

Just shut up.

WE NEED SIDEBAR , FOR SURE IT HELPS US A LOT. SILLY TO BLAME IF FOR "OCCUPY" SPACE IN MY HUGE WIDESCREEN. WE NEED SIDEBAR. Paul why do you need to boycott IE 7 if you dont like Sidebar. You should boycott Sidebar(just turn it OFF) and so PAUL,PLEASE DONT MISLEAD THE USERS.

I dont know about ne one else but im sick of seeing people scream about it being beta in MS's defence like seriously it doesnt even include alot of the features and support the final version will so why are they even beta testing it especially if it doesnt include the CSS version compatibitly that the alpha will to make things short they are crash testing the prototype and saying the production model is safe i dont know about ne one else but that seems completely stupid to me as CSS is a main staple in web development

For those of you foolish enough to believe that CSS compliance is what makes useable web apps, you are so sorely mistaken. CSS is only really required for formatting. The idea that these silly "standards compliant" developers are still writting javascript by hand just tickles me to no end. Abandon your archiac OSes. Gone is your "free love" picture of the web. Accept the fact that the corporate world now owns the web. Accept the fact that Micrososft is the gold standard used by that world. Not the W3C, not those idiots that created the Acid2 test. .Net developers just buy controls that render browser specific javascript for them. You should be doing everything except control and browser direction logic on the server-side anyway. As a developer no single application has madee my job EASIER than IE (5 and 6). It is simply the easiest client platform to write web apps for. "You are destoying the free spirit of the web". Blah blah blah. Go cry yourself to sleep. Just swallow your tongue and save us all from your "free love" belly-aching. But please burn your tie-dyed t-shirts and Birkenstock sandals first. Who said the internet was supposed to be standards compliant? It is a global netowrk. No more. No less. And it is driven by business. Business has selected Microsoft for its ease of use, its low TCO and its supportability. To quote the BIG Lebowski, "Your revolution is over. The bums lost!"

Funny. Firefox does not pass this test too. :0

Here's the way I see it: Microsoft has hardly ever been interested in producing first-rate software; they have been interested in maximizing their income. I can remember back in 1993 when, as a fledgling Technical Writer, I was incensed by my inability to scroll a document with graphics displayed in Word 2. In frustration, I cast about for an alternative and found a copy of Ami Pro 2 lying around. I was amazed at the difference - Ami Pro scrolled 3 times faster than Word and could do most (if not all) of what Publisher now does. What a brilliant piece of work. It was then I realized what the courts have now found: Microsoft had been (and still is) producing FOISTWARE. Leveraging its monopoly with the OS for the PC platform, it foists all of its other mediocre products on a naive, unsophisticated and unsuspecting majority. A Machiavellian business stratagem which, unfortunately succeeds brilliantly in a land where people elect former wrestlers, actors, man-slaughterers, drug users and convicts to public office.

Paul, you need to lose some weight. Why don't you go exercise and let our your frustrations instead of blabbing about MS and standards which hardly anyone cares about.

In my humble opinion: Firefox has more than its fair share of bugs(otherwise I like it the best), Opera is not free, Safari is a mess and Netscape has been a horror since version 3 which was great at the time. IE might not be a good browser but I know of none better.

I support this boycott call 100%.

.

I totally agree on IE being a cancer to the internet . I am a web developer myself and I waste so much time having to make sites work in both browsers (IE vs The rest). lol But to my luck Netscape have come back fighting with netscape 8 which uses both firefox and IE rendering engines so it can save me time. But is it really netscapes job to save my time ? NO Simple answer and MS should start working with everyone in the development world if it is software or web development.

I want to know what you all are smoking. IE is a PRODUCT produced by a COMPANY. a free product even. A producer of a product has the right to do whatever they want with it. If MS decides that it's too expensive to support a standard - well that's there call. It's your call as a "customer" to choose whether or not to use it. But don't, please, say "they should do this", they "should do that". If you are using the product, you can say "I'd like this [please]" - and if you aren't - then your opinion means absolutely f*** all. Why do you all think MS owes you something? As far as the actual issue goes, I'm a senior technical architect and have been leading teams of web developers since the mosaic days.. and I can tell you - we don't even bother testing on anything other than IE. When you add up the cost/benefit it's just not worth it. People throw browser statistics around, but "10% of people use firefox" doesn't actually translate into "10% of our customers use firefox" - because most of our customers aren't computer people - and they are almost ALL on IE.. Factor the cost an extra week of testing and development each release for testing other browsers, against the potential lost revenue for the CHANCE that 1% of our customers out there are seeing an ugly site.... the equation's pretty easy. It would be stupid and dishonest of me to consider anything other than IE when developing, because it would be a net cost to the company. IE IS the standard - why don't you all sit back and complain that the other browsers don't support the de-facto standard!! [btw - until I got IE 7, I was using firefox, because I liked it better - but my personal preference doesn't affect my rational business decisions]

I agree with that "Um, why, yes, yes it is [Microsoft's fault]" and all comments on that post. And I don't usually jump on the 'bash MS' bandwagon either, but as a web developer myself, it's SERIOUSLY frustrating that it takes me twice or three times the time/effort to layout a page in IE than it takes me in the other browsers. About the 'MSIE offers many technologies as "extras", ... meant for "in house" use'... yeah, well... peekaboo and guillotine have been some 'extras', let me tell you. Bring on the extras, just give me full -or reasonable- compliance first. Not the case for any IE yet. Message to MS (if anyone in the development team cares to read it): You guys are great with some products (The media center demo in the Intel Roadshow really blew me off), but... It should really be the end of IE as we know it. IE needs to get back on track, and it won't unless you cut with backward compatibility. If the Netscape Browser 8 guys have been able to add a "Display like Firefox/Display like Internet Explorer" switch to its interface, how about you add a "Display like IE7/Display like previous IE" switch? Or provide some help guide for developers of those "backward compatibility required" sites to update it. How about you help web visitors with old IEs update it the same way Macromedia does with Flash? Banning IE users from accessing a website is not an option. The boicot should go to Microsoft, not end users nor website owners who need this ninety-some-percent-of-4-billion IE users to visit their sites. Now... how about this line of code in the html?: hmmm... might not work in previous IEs ;) A.M.

BTW, to the guy who said "the equation's pretty easy. It would be stupid and dishonest of me to consider anything other than IE when developing, because it would be a net cost to the company." It takes me one day to develop for Mozilla-based browsers what it takes me 2 or 3 days for IE... so, make the numbers and tell me which do you think is to blame for additional costs... Also... "IE IS the standard - why don't you all sit back and complain that the other browsers don't support the de-facto standard!!" yeah, well... Probably the UN were in a similar situation when some politician chose not to abide by the rest of the world's opinion. Just in case you didn't know, not everyone in the world wants to depend on proprietary software and pay for licenses... it is not about sandals-and-flowers love, it is about the money, the one some people/countries don't have, precisely.

IE is bloated, slow to render pages, and very old - hasn't really been improved in years. Firefox, Opera 8.x and Safari generally speaking beat IE's ***. And Firefox and Opera both run on all major platforms - Linux, Windows, OS X for Mac, and more... IE ONLY runs on Windows. MS share price hasn't done much in the past few years and this is another example of why. People want choice and innovation, and Firefox and Opera bring that. True, they all need improvement but at least Opera, Firefox and Safari seem to be moving that way, while IE really isn't much. And requiring IE for Windows Update, etc. is nonsense. It isn't necessary to have Microsoft Update (aka Windows/Office Update) use IE - MS could simply rewrite it to work similarly to the Mozilla Update site for extensions, etc. for Firefox, etc. and any browser could work then. This is why in a few years Linux, Mac OS X, UNIX (BSDs mostly), etc. will be the major OSes in the world, instead of Windows. This is also why Firefox and Opera will be around for years to come, because IE just isn't handling the job (at Microsoft's choice). These diehard IE apologists/"fans" don't know how bad they have it and how much nicer Firefox is... and how wrong they are about how "great" Microsoft/IE supposedly is. Notice how on Linux and OS X you don't have to run antivirus, a firewall, rootkit checks, and anti-spyware utilities, etc. - no registry to clean or repair from corruption, etc. - the stuff just WORKS. And it's fast, stable, and secure. And inexpensive. MS, on the other hand ... Windows is the most expensive OS in the universe... true it is highly compatible but it also has been around longer than Linux and OS X, and Windows is so insecure you must run a plethora of utilities just to "stay safe" (relatively, anyway). Worms, virii, Trojan horses, spyware, malware, rootkits, backdoors, poor security implementation and model... highly unstable even after billions spend on R&D to make it stable. Sad but true.

My take as a "web developer" is rather simple: the site is fancy if your browser supports the standards. if not, you get the lynx version with a friendly hint that you should GetFirefox.

"My advice is simple: Boycott IE. It's a cancer on the Web that must be stopped. IE isn't secure and isn't standards-compliant " Hear, hear! The more people that say it, and the more that use Firefox (what's its current market share? ;)), the quicker Micro$haft will have to fix the problems. A happy Firefax (but UNhappy XP Pro) user

"Microsoft is a company trying to make money, just like anyone else. Would you rather wait ANOTHER year for IE 7 so they can try and keep up with any new standards that would be released then? To them, the time to get something out is now. No company can make a perfect product." I'd rather wait another year so that IE looses more market and has to come up with something "super" to compete. Having incomplete browser now doesn't solve any existing problems. It makes them worse. I didn't use IE for years now (with rare exceptions) and I can tell you that "IE experience" is sickening in comparison to Firefox or Opera or Safari. It's not about security, it's not about monopoly - it's about convenience for both users and developers. IE is useless in both areas it just happen to be shipped with OS so people use what they have.

A smart man once said IE users are not users they are used its as simple as that

One word : Firefox. I just can't see even bothering with IE anymore. I mean come on! Its about the stinkiest security whore of any software ever made.

It might be the stinkiest security whore, but if our e-business didn't support it we could wave goodbye to 85% of our turnover overnight. And to say it doesn't support standards is to my mind nonsense. It does a far better job than Firefox where I have to kludge a timeout in javascript because the onLoad event doesnt work.

"Internet Explorer needs an occasional patch. Firefox needs a whole slew of new patches every month. So many in fact they have to come out with a new release almost every five weeks. IE is basically secured with only an occasional patch necessary any more. Firefox is full of unpatched holes. It is not a secure browser by a long shot. I wouldn't run it." Just because IE doens't GET a patch once a month doesn't mean it doens't NEED a patch. There's still hundreds of holes and crap in ie that haven't been patched yet, as a mater of fact, just before i read this I saw yet another news item on betanews that ms was releasing a bunch more security updates. The thing with firefox is that the day the bug is found is the day they start fixing it, then they release a couple at a time every few weeks. IE is like 'ohh a bug eh... cool', then you get 10 fixed in 3 months. Who's secure now? And i dont even want to get into the crap about 'ms should have been consulted for the standards' business. come on. you can't have the standards be controlled by ms, because all their crap is closed source! you think the mac side can support activex? wait wait.. would they even want to? hahaha, the web consortium guys aren't going to cut off entire platforms just because the average american dumbass uses ie because he doesn't know better.

I will be using IE. The Microsoft admission is frank and they have made strides towards that direction. I will not bow down to this bash Microsoft hysteria. It's ridiculous.

I have no idea why people like Firefox. The moment I installed and used it is when I thought of removing it right away. 10 minutes with Firefox was enough for me. I then went for Maxthon (www.maxthon.com), an IE's alternative. Less than 5 minutes later, I set it as my default browser.

"If a website doesn't meet web standards in how it is HTMLed and coded, is that Microsoft's fault?" Of course Microsoft. Why they make old IE not standard in the first place? If not, we will not have this problem.

It's not a histeria. Just once again changing the web. Someone will bow the Microsoft. Someone will use the standarts. Run Opera.

... Firefox 4 ever!

Sorry I am a webdeveloper and IE has been the bane of my existance. I work in the GOV/EDU realm and well lets just say MS makes it hard to comply with the DOJ enforced standards. CSS is the key to having a modern looking 508 compliant site... IE makes coding CSS2 HARD to say the least. I think the only thing I use IE for is checking my bank account ( shudders about security holes ) because my bank makes me. Even with workarounds in IE... that kills productivity that a CSS developer could implement on alt browers in a fraction of the time. Internet Explorer

"I have no idea why people like Firefox. The moment I installed and used it is when I thought of removing it right away. 10 minutes with Firefox was enough for me. I then went for Maxthon (www.maxthon.com), an IE's alternative. Less than 5 minutes later, I set it as my default browser." Can your PC not run it? Got Spyware or something? Firefox isn't slow so it must be your setup. My Grandmother runs a K62-400mhz 128mb laptop w. windows 98SE. Her PC runs Firefox JUST FINE now that IE is not being used ( well as little as possible cause even an uninstall doesn't uninstall it and its technology ) her PC can run ALL apps faster. Being a fanboi of MS to use a crap browser that "looks good" but is like driving a farrari on a slippery mountain cliff road over rocky ocean shore just is stupid.

still no full support for the web, what have they been doing for the last 5 years?

jjjjjjj

BOYCOTT THIS WEBSITE. It's a cancer on the Web that must be stopped. This website isn't standards-compliant. Got it?

If microsoft IE fully supported the standards what would happen??well certainly they would lose a big share of their user base(they would be competing at same level with other browsers in this case)...by not following standards they force users to use/(or should I say buy) that piece of crap...many web sites are IE oriented only(once more because they "follow" web "standards")...

If you can't code properly for IE, you are a bad coder. There are just as serious and annoying shortcomings in that stupid FF as there is in that stupid IE, but IE has twice as many tricks up the sleeve. Listen to the 'fancy designer' crowd. Sheesh, where are 'don't use javascript at all' whiners too? How anyone can get so uptight about the 10 or 05% difference between two browsers is beyond me, but you better learn how to code before you blow a vessel.

....the company has gone its own way for so long and now has to support so many developers who use nonstandard Web technologies that it will be impossible to make IE Web-standards-compliant without breaking half the commercial Web sites on the planet.... Thereby becoming what they have always wanted to be in the first place "THE STANDARD". Microsoft wants control and they will get it because we are all just a bunch of cows doing what we need to get what we need done and care less about who or what is pulling our strings.

"A website *can* be 100 % standards compliant and be useable by Internet Explorer - it's called testing. Just make sure that any part of the standard that IE doesn't meet doesn't get used." Of course you are right. But this means that, as a designer, my choices are limited, and the website will be less rich than it could be. IE6 ignores 80% of CSS2: fixed positioning (which is a perfect replacement for frames), :hover pseudoelement (which could be used for dropdown menues, among others) and fixed background image positioning (which is even part of CSS1). Replacements, mostly by JavaScript, are ugly and pose a lot of problems on their own. Moreover, IE6 *misinterprets* a lot of CSS1, e.g., the infamous box model bug. Going for the least common denominator is a foolish thing, as it bars users of modern browsers from getting well-deserved advantages. Maintaining a multi-versioned site is a nightmare, and requires adjusting whenever MS emits another IE incarnation, all of which have their own limitations and bugs. As a web designer, I feel enslaved by microsoft, who cause me a lot (!!) of extra work, even if I am not even their customer.

If you can't code properly for IE, you are a bad coder. -- um.. are you high? What part of 'standards compliant' don't you understand?? IE is not standards compliant. that simple. IOW.. a lot of unnecessary frustration for Web Developers.

The best thing to increase the likelyhood of a IE7 Boycott is the promotion of better browsers like Mozilla Firefox. We all know they cant play ball in microsoft's marketability court but if WE do everything we can make microsoft squirm, as developers, they'll notice the missing pennies and become compliant. Add support to Mozilla Firefox instead of IE to your apps and websites, then INFORM the public while advertising your products of the advantages OVER support for IE. microsoft, like security and adaptability. Have faith in this: microsofts #1 on thier SList: COMPETITIOUN

ZEPU EBAL -PIDORY _ CUKI EBAL EBAL VAS ZEPU v ZEPU EBAL

I can say one thing to this, i wonder why these guys arent shaking hands. i mean Firefox with MSIE team. The ms team could develop windows platform specific plugins for firefox and also have support to the firefox comission. In this way the problems are solved. MS would have their comercial things, customly developed, and firefox would become the first stanards compliant browser in internet history. More apps targeted to MS plugins, more apps targeted to firefox, more active development of firefox, more standard compliance ... much easier to create apps for us developers. :) ( UTOPIC isnt it ? ... but think of it, it could be possible )

Zmey, web-designer: 100% agree with author! Tomorrow _ALL_ my sites shall block access by IE7. User will see only splash prompts remove this "krysozhop" and setup normal browser loke Opera, Firefox, Mozilla etc. Join me!

OK, IE out! I use Firefox and Opera.

I can't help, but agree 100% with you Paul and I can't help, but feel that people who don't agree somehow don't realize just exactly what Microsoft is doing. I personally use IE, but if I had the chance and actually could remove it properly from my windows, which is a horrible program as well, but that's another story, I would do it in a heartbeat. I am a 3rd year informatics engineering student so I know all too well just how much crap IE is.

To completely remove M$ IE from your system, just: 1. Search in Gooogle etc. "Ieradicator" 2. Download this programm 3. Read manual and install it (== remove ANY IE) 4. Install Opera, Mozillla, Firefox etc. Enjoy! By this way you'll make your system more faster & clean! Or - thinking different - remove Windows all and install Linux.

I understand that the latest Netscape (NS) has a split re: engine. When a web page is accessed and it appears to be a Web standards built page, NS launches the Mozilla engine to render. If the page appears to be MS proprietary, it launches a IE-type engine to render. If NS can support the duality, presumably until the non-standard one DIES, why can't MS, with their generous market share, support the duality in a similar manner? Don't tell me that they don't want to bear the cost. How cheap (quatlity) do you want a product before you refuse to pay for it because it is not equally cheap (price)?

In this moment, Mozilla Firefox is the best Web Browser.

Microsoft, unlike most of you belly-achers, knows the importance of backwards-compatibility, along with also embracing new standards. (Although they did leap to a new world moving from VB6 to VB.Net -- and a whole different set of belly-achers complained about the LACK of backwards compatibility.) Most of you loudmouths weren't developing in the late 70's and 80's when it was basically the wild west and no one knew what the computer industry would become. Microsoft as they introduced new tools and operating systems always carefully paid attention to trying to be as backward-compatible as possible. Other companies didn't give it a thought (the way most of you wouldn't give it a thought). In the name of progress they figured as long as something supported the new standards, it's fine if they break the work of 80% of their customers. Luckily for Microsoft, you guys weren't steering the bus, because, unlike you, they became a SUCCESS STORY.

hey , check this: Microsoft must be angry with FireFox new users and attack us with a "validation" inserted in the actualization web-site ... take a look ! i think Microsoft is monopolize the web ... what are that they wants ? .. money ? oh my god ...

Most of the comments and this article completely miss the real underling problem. The big problem is that half the commercial websites will break if IE is fixed. The real core of the problem is that web designers tend to use tools such as FrontPage and Dreamweaver to create the crazy websites. Neither product does a good job of generating HTML that is renderable in anything other than a desktop browser. The whole point of the W3C standards is to shift this trend so that things such as Cell Phones, Palm devices, Search Engines can get to the content and present it in consistent method. Websites are stuck using image maps nested tables and other items to make the site render pretty on the desktop in every broswer. When IE does is more CSS complient these tools can shift to generate pages that rely more on CSS because the user base of the net will have CSS complient browsers. It's a kick in the jaw to realize that this advancement will be delayed even farther meaning that web programers that actually have to make pages that render correctly in the 6 major browsers (including AOL) will have to continue using hacks to make this happen. But guess what we've being doing this for over 5 years now and any competient HTML guru can get around the broswer differences. It's the hacks that attempt to use the web design tools or use some technology that is browser specific, be it IE or Firefox, that is the real problem. We should boycott those websites and force the webmasters to generate code that doesn't require MS to keep outdated backward compatability modes. Of course this means that the core components of the Windows OS need to be designed with that in mind as well. I'm guessing that it's not just commercial websites that would break but portions of XP that rely on the quirky nature of IE as well. Will IE mature? Yes because eventually Firefox will force it to. Will the 90% of the brainless users care no they don't even know what a broswer is.

I respect the point about standards potentially making it easier to develop web endpoints viewable on other formfactors such as a cell phone for example. On the other hand, I think mobile is WAY over-hyped. How boring to view web pages on a screen small enough to fit in a hand-held device. Frankly, I think all the yahoos that are so focused on being able to access CNN on their phone need to get a life. Dude, you finally got your arse OUT of your bedroom for 5 minutes -- try taking a deep breath, looking around, and actually living your life instead of still being immersed in your tiny 2-inch cell phone screen -- take a break from it!! Then go back to your room and look at the web on your 24-inch cinema aspect-ratio display when you need to reconnect to the Internet.

If and when Firefox or some combination of non-IE browsers reaches a 'critical mass,' the pressure on IE to retain it's quirks-mode, backwards compatible design will diminish. By boycotting IE, we're putting MS on track (enabling, if you will) to change IE for more reasons than just the loss of market share, product visibility and goodwill. http://www.ardamis.com/

??, here again too abuse Micro$$$$oft?

Actually the full phrase was "Web developers are hamstrung into developing for IE at the expense of established standards that work well in all other browsers" The key there is work well in all browsers. And the author did NOT use the phrase "equally well". That was your assertina.

I typed out this huge letter to you all about this issue, but something happend and it was not posted.... So lets simply say, Paul and anyone that sides with him, is a complete flagrent idiot. PS, I did not say that the first time (well not in those words at least)

Boycot-smoycot...Microsoft is the web standard. The WC3 standards group is just a bunch of college kids flexing their muscles.

I have read about 2/3 of the meandering conversations and roughly about the same elsewhere. I have developed for the web in html 4.0x standards for sometime and have little problems showing my content to any IE / FireFox / Etc Browser as long as the proprietary portions of coding are not used that each browser has adopted. In a statement about what I see as control standards define what can/can't be done in a place where fluiditity and change are open and welcome. You are all saying to those that adopt the standards to stagnate development. Yet, in the same breath you also state that anyone not adopting to the standards is causing the stagnation. As for which Operating System is better or worse, this is a question better left to your priest, because just as much as you may love your wintel x486 linux box running your freedos browser that allows you post to places such as these each flavor of operating system is a niche to which users gravitate depending on what they want. OSX and others are just a flavor that people of a particular type like for specific functions they have. Don't get yourselves caught up into defining a clear difference between them as there is no longer a clear and concise difference between xp and osx other than they won't allow you to migrate your apps. In a nutshell, Standard define how something should work in its basic defined shape. You enhance those standards by adopting the standards first and increasing your development on top of those standards. This may mean making seperate code bases for multiple flavors but, it also means being able to produce a feature rich and content heavy website that attracts users that may not be accustomed to using your flavor of browser.

I really don’t see the issue. They say they are trying to make it more standards compliant, yet they can't without also upsetting many users of the older propriety code. If they went fully standards compliant then many people would be irate, and rightfully so. Its not hard to make things work equally as well in IE as Firefox, a bit of extra playing around maybe, but it is possible so why get upset over it. Its getting CSS2 so great, new things to code for. Without new features as other have said, the world would simply stagnate. Change is good. The only things I will be judging it on is its compatibility at displaying the sites I need correctly, its user interface, and how fast it can render. Anything else is really irrelevant. I can’t see myself changing from using both IE and Firefox.

Boycott IE might be good advice for users, but it's awful advice for web developers. Users -- not web developers -- decide which browsers to program for. As long as IE holds the majority of the browser market (which they do by a loooooooong shot) it's just plain stupid to ignore IE's capabilities/limitations.

It's good to know that Apple is so Secure I should go get me one. http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/mac/0,39020393,39213407,00.htm

How to prepare for Internet Explorer 7 - http://my.opera.com/nicomen/journal/7

Ask yourselft the following question, do the majority of end users even know what standards compliance is? I would say no. They want new UI features in the browser and that is what Microsoft is giving them. One has to be pragmatic.

I don't need a reason to boycott IE. Firefox is way better. IE is so far behind, I doubt MS can ever catch up.

Firefox will continue to raise. Because things won't change...

windows internet explorer 7 downoad page is here: http://windows.czweb.org/show_article.php?id_article=61

I wish Firefox and other browsers had the sense to allow coloured scrollbars. What kind of nonsense is it to eschew them on the grounds that visually challenged folk might have problems with 'em? It's these sorts of decisions - and the plain fact that IE is more forgiving of coding errors - that is the reason for IE's popularity; apart from the monopoly factor. But would we really be better off being monopolised by slowbo Firefox? Tabs. I manage perfectly well without them, actually, and will turn 'em off in IE7.

I have to say that anyone in defense of IE is ill informed. This fight isn't about the end user of the sites. Your right,99% of the people out there have no idea what w3c compliance is and doesn't care. It's about the developers that have to make concessions for a non compliant browser and the added time it takes us. But...If you wanna talk about the user end of this lets look at an exert from www.schneier.com. [quote] This study(http://bcheck.scanit.be/bcheck/page.php?name=STATS2004) is from August, but I missed it. The researchers tracked three browsers (MSIE, Firefox, Opera) in 2004 and counted which days they were "known unsafe." Their definition of "known unsafe": a remotely exploitable security vulnerability had been publicly announced and no patch was yet available. MSIE was 98% unsafe. There were only 7 days in 2004 without an unpatched publicly disclosed security hole. Firefox was 15% unsafe. There were 56 days with an unpatched publicly disclosed security hole. 30 of those days were a Mac hole that only affected Mac users. Windows Firefox was 7% unsafe. Opera was 17% unsafe: 65 days. That number is accidentally a little better than it should be, as two of the upatched periods happened to overlap. This underestimates the risk, because it doesn't count vulnerabilities known to the bad guys but not publicly disclosed (and it's foolish to think that such things don't exist). So the "98% unsafe" figure for MSIE is generous, and the situation might be even worse.[/quote] So beyond the fact the browser is compliant, it's also unsafe. But these same people that sit in IE's corner are also the same ones that don't know enough to not get viruses/trojans/keylogers because there just not well enough informed or knowledgeable enough to know the difference.

We're already boycotting IE. I use Firefox.

1) It looks like someone changed the article. It does not say "equally well" anywhere. 2) If IE 7 is standards compliant, and a web site breaks, then it was already broken. That is no excuse to forego compliance in IE. Microsoft is just making up excuses for trying to lock people in to their product. Btw, if you use Windows, you are not as locked in as you might think. 3) Fortunately, IE 6 (and I assume IE 7, since they say it is more compliant) is close enough to standards compliance that a web site can be standards-compliant, and then make a few minor adjustments to still be usable in IE (and the site can remain compliant). Yes, it would be nice if web site designers did not have to custom tailor for IE, but it's not like web site designers can't use standards compliance without breaking IE. They can both be achieved. Web site designers that design standards non-compliant sites are just lazy/stupid/ignorant. It has been a long time since I worried and fretted over supporting multiple browsers. It is pretty easy. 4) A boycott on IE? That seems kind of redundant. I mean, anyone who knows what a browser is is using something else anyway. That would be like boycotting glass chewing, or placing a boycott on jamming your toe in a door.