Revised IE7 Naming in Windows Vista
I had mentioned a while back that we planned to call the version of IE7 in Windows Vista “Internet Explorer 7+”. Well, the feedback we got on the blog was overwhelming – many of you didn’t like it. So, as we’ve said on our website, we heard you. I’m pleased to announce that we’re switching the name back to “Internet Explorer 7”. No plus. No dot x. Just “Internet Explorer 7”.
Specifically, here are the official full names:
- For Windows XP: “Windows Internet Explorer 7 for Windows XP”
- For Windows Vista: “Windows Internet Explorer 7 in Windows Vista”
Those can be a bit of a mouthful, so you’ll see us using the shorter “Internet Explorer 7 for Windows XP” and “Internet Explorer 7 in Windows Vista” when we need to refer a platform-specific feature (like Protected Mode in Windows Vista). We’ll use “Internet Explorer 7” to talk about IE in general and features that are consistent across all platforms (like the Phishing Filter).
We’re glad we checked with you all before we shipped so we didn’t go out with an unpopular name. Thanks for all your feedback – keep it up!
Tony Chor
Group Program Manager
Comments
Anonymous
August 04, 2006
Yep, IE Group Program Manager Tony Chor just announced that the masses have spoken, and the version of...Anonymous
August 04, 2006
Hey, you can use the following free of charge if you like:
IE 7 XP
IE 7 VistaAnonymous
August 04, 2006
Again...
OT: Internet Options ---> Advanced --->
[] Open New Windows Full Screen.
Mahalo!
;-)Anonymous
August 04, 2006
Great! Now we only need to convince the .NET team to rebrand .NET Framework 3.0 to .NET Framework 2.5Anonymous
August 04, 2006
For some reason I didn't expect the change.
(and I wanted it)Anonymous
August 04, 2006
Awesome. You listened. I was shocked to see it. Honestly, I didn't know the IE team knew how to do that.
Now, how about listening to our other thousands of suggestions?Anonymous
August 04, 2006
When will IE7 Final be released? Any hints or ideas?Anonymous
August 04, 2006
So if you know the full name is a mouthfull, why tack on the "Windows" at the front? Oh yes, I remember. It's because of the "it's not an applications, it's an integrated part of Windows" defense in the DOJ trial.
Anyway, this is an improvement.Anonymous
August 04, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 04, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 04, 2006
Well the names are too long.......
internet explorer 7 & 7+ Sounded betterAnonymous
August 04, 2006
Bogota: We plan to ship IE7 in Q4 of this year.
Mark: We desperately want to fix in-webpage search too, but it'll have to wait for a future version. We're locking down now and focusing on getting the quality right.
Noah: Hopefully you've seen from the blog and the product, we have been listening. We know there are tons of other things the community wants to see in IE; we'll get to do more of them in future releases.
Gabriel: Sorry, we don't get a vote on the .NET naming.Anonymous
August 04, 2006
Hugely impressed - thanks for listening to us. :) Posted about it on Neowin for yous.Anonymous
August 04, 2006
myIE7.com,For Sale!!!Anonymous
August 04, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 04, 2006
goodAnonymous
August 04, 2006
very goodAnonymous
August 04, 2006
Great job guys...for short I offer the obvious IE7 XP and IE7 V...now if you guys could only find a way to make them about:blank proof lolAnonymous
August 04, 2006
Call it anything you want, just get it to quit crashingAnonymous
August 04, 2006
PingBack from http://www.apcstart.com/site/dwarne/2006/08/918/microsoft-dumps-unpopular-ie7Anonymous
August 04, 2006
Good work on the name change, and I'll put in another vote for IE7 xp and IE7 Vista.Anonymous
August 04, 2006
Great job!! Best decision!!!Anonymous
August 04, 2006
For a while I was puzzled by why there're so many products using codename before they are officially released, like Chicago (Windows 95), Tiger (for both J2SE 5.0 and Mac OS X v10.4), Avalon (Windows Presentation Foundation) and so on. Until I've cameAnonymous
August 04, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 04, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 04, 2006
I am sad to say, there is no consistancy in the naming.
* For Windows XP: “Windows Internet Explorer 7 for Windows XP”
* For Windows Vista: “Windows Internet Explorer 7 in Windows Vista”
It must be "Windows Internet Explorer 7 for Windows Vista", in my opinion, for consistancy and sound better. :)Anonymous
August 04, 2006
I think I shall just call it 'IE7', perhaps 'IE7 for XP' or 'IE7 for Vista' if I really need to differentiate. Life's too short to keep using those mouthfuls that you've decided on.Anonymous
August 04, 2006
The IE team have changed their mind about the name for Internet Explorer 7, in Windows Vista.  They're...Anonymous
August 04, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 05, 2006
Well if you had shipped with your original name, you would have created a great deal of confusion amongst users who dont know any better, IE7 im pleased to say was dragged together because of Firefox gaining a lot of momentum i hope that firefox gets more market share, because then it will ultimately keep MS on their toes and the IE team developing and innovating, in an area where creativity is never lost.
One request for the interface of IE7 is that it seems the buttons are slightly too close together there should be a bit more space between them i think, it just looks cramped up there on the UI.
AJAnonymous
August 05, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 05, 2006
Will the IE7 XP and IE7 Vista have the same version-number, or will you be able to tell which OS the customer is using from the version number og IE7?
With IE5 IE had different version numbers depending on OS, but in IE6 the same version number was used both on Win98 and WinXP.
Users are often not aware of the version of Windows they run, so it would be nice to be able to distinguish IE7 for XP and IE7 for Vista on the version number.Anonymous
August 05, 2006
So what’s the new name? Microsoft’s Tony Chor explains at the IEBlog:
...Anonymous
August 05, 2006
Wow. Thank you x 2 Guys! You're actually listening. :)
Since you're listening: IE7 looks great. It's a huge improvement, and I look forward to getting in and depending on it being there. Just please don't drop back to maintenance mode after release!Anonymous
August 05, 2006
Thanks for changing the name. It just goes to prove that "preaching to the Chor" can work sometimes. (Ba dum pum, thank you very much, I'll be here all week.)Anonymous
August 05, 2006
I preferred IE7+ ;-(Anonymous
August 05, 2006
I'm a bit curious as to the thoughts behind using the word "for" in the Windows XP version and the word "in" in the Vista version. I mean, there must be some important reason for it, because it doesn't seem obvious to do it that way.Anonymous
August 05, 2006
The difference between 'for' and 'in' is quite obvious. IE7 will be available 'for' download for users of Windows XP, whereas Vista will be shipped with IE7 already 'in' it.
I hope that explains.Anonymous
August 05, 2006
I am assuming it is because one isn't required to upgrade to IE7 when using XP, meanwhile Vista ships with IE7 so it is "in" the Vista installation image.
Of course, I don't remember reading about it, but is Microsoft going to include IE7 "in" SP3 for XP? If so, that would mean they would have to change the name for those installing from XPSP3 installation media to "IE7 in XP"... ;)Anonymous
August 05, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 05, 2006
Great decision!
I'm glad, thank you very much.
That's the way to go.Anonymous
August 05, 2006
I am so impressed to see that the name has been changed. Great work!
I do have somewhat of a suggestion though; is it possible to have tabs close on a double-click? Even if it's not a default option, but someting you can change in advanced settings? It makes life so much easier, would love to hear why it can't be implemented though.
Regads.Anonymous
August 05, 2006
"internet explorer 7 & 7+ Sounded better"
The problem is just the conflict in the de facto standard of "version X+" to tell "version X or higher", which was the major problem with the former branding.
Sounds like a good decision to me!
As someone said, .NET Framework 3.0 should now just be 2.5 and I'm quite happy. The problem with "3.0" is that the actual core framework is still 2.0 without any special changes, and they bundle more API's with it. 3.0 also conflicts with the C# 3.0 that won't be included. 2.5 would tell the users that it's 2.0 "with more stuff".Anonymous
August 05, 2006
Not to ignore the hard work I'm sure you folks put in to IE7 but will users be able to actually uninstall it (in the actually definition of uninstall) should it become a huge source of problems 3-4 years in to Vista's live life-span or will it simply be a remove shortcuts deal we have in XP?
Also will we see an update option like with Firefox to streamline patches? For example browsers really need to be ready for CSS3 and I for one am tired of seeing table layouts that could be replaced by multiple background support via CSS3 on pages lacking tabular data. It's 2006 and I assume Vista will come out mid-2007 and CSS3 before, we die if we're lucky. I would also assume this might be an IE8 feature unless for some reason Windows Update could simply patch the MSHTML.DLL file unless it is not that easy?
With IE7 there are only so much left that can be complained about until the focus is lifted from you folks to the W3C. How long have they been working on CSS3? Any word on if they will ever get it finished?
http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-workAnonymous
August 05, 2006
Dave: "Preaching to the Chor"? Really? [Groan]. Actually, I think "chor" in German means "choir", so maybe it works.
Steven: Yes, the difficulties naming stuff is exactly why we use codenames upfront. Besides, if we hadn't used "Chicago" as the codename for Windows 95, we would have been calling it "Windows 93" for a long time...
Jim: As CX pointed out correctly, the "in" vs. "for" thing is conscious. IE7 is in Windows Vista because it's the version of IE that ships with Vista. IE7 is for XP because it's available as an update to the version of IE that shipped with the OS (IE6).
Zyaq: Both versions will have the same version number. The naming for IE5/5.01 caused a lot of confusion, so we're trying to avoid that situation again.
CX: We haven't closed on our XP SP3 plans yet, but we have not historically updated the version of IE in Windows service packs.Anonymous
August 05, 2006
Cool. Good to see progress like this.Anonymous
August 05, 2006
I think the name should stay the same in any new windows that comes up, like when you guys get to IE8 don't change it keep it the way it is so there's not alot of confusion in future new windows.Anonymous
August 05, 2006
IE7 - Windows Vista に含まれる IE7 の名前の変更Anonymous
August 05, 2006
What about Windows 2000?Anonymous
August 05, 2006
Really glad you guys listened to the criticism. But a minor comment/question. What's the point of "for Windows XP" and "in Windows Vista"? It might just be semantics, but it seems weird to me to not use the same phrases for both.Anonymous
August 05, 2006
Its AWESOMEAnonymous
August 05, 2006
Its awesome that you guys are opening up this process... prevents you from ending up with a stupid name like "MacBook Pro" :-)
(sorry about the previous post... hit submit by mistake)Anonymous
August 05, 2006
PingBack from http://www.windowsxlive.net/?p=55Anonymous
August 05, 2006
Starwood Previews New Hotel Brand in Second Life - I have blogged before about Starwood’s well-named new offering Aloft and now Micropersuasion gives us a heads up on the new brand strategy for the same product name: they are going to preview the hotelsAnonymous
August 05, 2006
IE 7 works well Good product.
Any difference between the XP and Vista IE7?Anonymous
August 05, 2006
Revised IE7 Naming - Microsoft has decided to drop the "Internet Explorer 7+" name it was going to use for the version of its browser that would run on the upcoming Vista operating system. Users had complained that it left too much room forAnonymous
August 05, 2006
This IE7 sound good I guess it is time for me to down load it.Anonymous
August 05, 2006
This looks good. Keep the names to go with the operating system.
Cuts down on confusionAnonymous
August 05, 2006
A wise decision I think. Good to see you guys listening to the feedback you get again.Anonymous
August 05, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 05, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 05, 2006
Youhou, great idea. Happy to hear that you are at least reading our reviews!Anonymous
August 05, 2006
Jug said:
>>The problem is just the conflict in the de facto standard of "version X+" to tell "version X or higher", which was the major problem with the former branding.<<
Thanks, Jug. Your post was the only one in the hundreds here that explained just what the problem with "7+" was. I couldn't understand the big deal of the new name until your post. Now, it makes perfect sense.
Tony said:
>>CX: We haven't closed on our XP SP3 plans yet, but we have not historically updated the version of IE in Windows service packs.<<
What about XP SP2? Didn't that come with the new build of IE6 that included pop-blocking support? I think that that was the precendent that people are going off of when thinking that future IE releases will be included in service packs.
Personally, I think that IE7 is such a major improvement that it should be included in SP3. There will still be millions of XP installations even years after Vista. Giving IE7 to users who don't know enough to get it, themselves, would be doing them a favor, in my opinion.Anonymous
August 05, 2006
C O N G R A T U L A T I O N S ! ! ! !
Best Post on this Blog so far!
MS admits they made a mistake, and fixes it before the final release!
Welcome to the "listening to your customers era"!Anonymous
August 05, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 05, 2006
great site with very good look and perfect information...i like itAnonymous
August 05, 2006
There's only one problem with the new name.
Most casual users don't understand the difference between "windows explorer" versus "internet explorer". Calling it "windows internet explorer ... " will put the final nail in the coffin. These people don't have a chance on learning the correct program names if you start combining the confusing terminology.Anonymous
August 05, 2006
There's only one problem with the new name.
Most casual users don't understand the difference between "windows explorer" versus "internet explorer". Calling it "windows internet explorer ... " will put the final nail in the coffin. These people don't have a chance on learning the correct program names if you start combining the confusing terminology.Anonymous
August 05, 2006
For Sale...待售,我的IE7:http://www.myie7.com/Anonymous
August 05, 2006
For Sale...My IE7:http://www.myie7.com/Anonymous
August 05, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 05, 2006
PingBack from http://www.quickonlinetips.com/archives/2006/08/internet-explorer-7-for-windows-vista-now-without-the-plus/Anonymous
August 05, 2006
We need tabs =)Anonymous
August 05, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 05, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 06, 2006
PingBack from http://www.vistawindows.it/?p=73Anonymous
August 06, 2006
Tony said:
>>CX: We haven't closed on our XP SP3 plans yet, but we have not historically updated the version of IE in Windows service packs.<<
Thanks Jon, while I didn't expect IE7 to be in SP3, I did write that last part of my post knowing that SP2's changes to IE6 did open the door at least slightly for Microsoft to choose to go that way if they decided to.
I agree that I would prefer a current, patched IE7 to be part of SP3, instead of IE6, for all the clean XP installs IT pros will still be doing in 2007, especially before Vista's first service pack comes out.
Which leads to another question, how long will IE6 be updated for security flaws, after IE7 and Vista ship?
If IE6 security is going to get pushed into background, early on, then it really does make sense to include IE7 in XP's SP3. Of course, this really only matters to IT pros and so I really doubt saving us time is of any concern.
Also, I keep reading there are no "finalized plans" for SP3, so maybe they are just going to do a "rollup" like they did for 2000 (instead of SP5)?Anonymous
August 06, 2006
Thank goodness Microsoft saw sense.
I can't imagine how many people would have asked me "where do I...Anonymous
August 06, 2006
PingBack from http://blog.vijay.name/index.php/2006/08/06/internet-explorer-7-not-to-have-different-name-in-windows-vista/Anonymous
August 06, 2006
FAVICONS ! FAVICONS ! FAVICONS ! FAVICONS !
Please Fix Them MicrosoftAnonymous
August 06, 2006
Hi,
I have been using IE7 since quite long and would like one feature to be implemented that would help many people a lot.
What I have in mind is better access to the history through the address bar by supporting wild cards. Thus if I type *.msdn - the drop down should show all the urls browsed by me like blogs.msdn.com/.. OR developer.msdn.com etc..
Thanks,
Abhijit.Anonymous
August 06, 2006
As`regards comment (Saturday, August 05, 2006 11:56 AM by daza) "...is it possible to have tabs close on a double-click? Even if it's not a default option, but someting you can change in advanced settings? It makes life so much easier, would love to hear why it can't be implemented though." What's so difficult about closing tab by clicking "x" on RH of tab? Why complicate things with redundant commands?Anonymous
August 06, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 06, 2006
you know we're all just going to call it IE7/XP and IE7/Vista and IE7/2k...no wait... ;P
at least someone at microsoft is willing to go against the flow of "moronic naming decisions". well done, people! :)Anonymous
August 06, 2006
Great idea, it wont confuse people this way! - we hope
http://www.arcon5.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=403Anonymous
August 06, 2006
Did IE7 ever have a codename? Or was IE7 just the next logical name in the IE evolution.Anonymous
August 06, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 06, 2006
@daza: Middle-click works to close tabs.
@Zyaq: Both versions will have the same version number, but you can sniff the OS platform from the tokens. See http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/workshop/author/dhtml/overview/aboutuseragent.aspAnonymous
August 06, 2006
Should have called it Internet Exterminator
Will MS finally make IE stop crashing when you have 5 windows open, all of them important?
and get rid of that annoying send/don't send option. if it didn't crash we wouldn't need itAnonymous
August 06, 2006
&nbsp; That's it the Internet Explorer team listened to the feedback they got from you. They changed...Anonymous
August 06, 2006
How about Microsoft Firefox Emulator?Anonymous
August 06, 2006
PingBack from http://www.winfoblog.org/?p=279Anonymous
August 06, 2006
I want Internet Explorer 7 to be released when it actually works, no known bugs, tested more then ever before so that IT professionals actually wish to install it on company computers without risk of loosing thousand of work hours etc etc.
Same with Vista. Release it when it works, not sooner (I know that's not your table on the IE team about Vista, but still).Anonymous
August 06, 2006
Fix the FAVICONS !!!!!!!!Anonymous
August 07, 2006
PingBack from http://www.winboard.org/forum/news/43122-internet-explorer-7-neuer-name-fuer-vista-version.html#post287617Anonymous
August 07, 2006
What a great news! Who cares about naming if it works slow or have bugs? Focus on quality, solve naming problems later.Anonymous
August 07, 2006
Who cares what it's called? It'll still be the usual POS that we've come to know and love. Oh wait... I just completed the Windows Eradication Project... my entire network is now Linux, thank you, including desktopsAnonymous
August 07, 2006
WHen I first saw the 'for' versus 'in', my thoughts were that it was created -for- XP, but it was stuck -in' Vista (Not really for vista, but in Vista....)
hmmmm.....Anonymous
August 07, 2006
Good news. The for/in thing is weird, and the multiple "Windows" are repetitive, but as long as it doesn't confuse people about what "7+" is you can call it whatever you like. Personally, I would have gone with:
Internet Explorer 7 for Windows XP
Internet Explorer 7 for Windows Vista
Clear, concise, no explanation needed.Anonymous
August 07, 2006
@Lordmike -- If any software product waits to release until there are "no known bugs", then it will never be released.Anonymous
August 07, 2006
How about:
Microsoft Windows Firefox Emulator 7 in Microsoft Windows Vista for Microsoft Windows Vista?Anonymous
August 07, 2006
Hooray!Anonymous
August 07, 2006
Seriously, what is with the in/for confusion with people on here?
It was already explained early on, and yet still the comments.
You won't see:
"Internet Explorer 6 for/in Vista" as nothing less than IE7 will be available.
You will see:
"Internet Explorer 7 for XP", just as you had seen "Internet Explorer 6 in XP" or "Internet Explorer 6 for Windows 2000".
Is this really that troublesome to people?Anonymous
August 07, 2006
Why don't you guys just call both versions IE7 Rincon?Anonymous
August 07, 2006
"We’re glad we checked with you all before we shipped so we didn’t go out with an unpopular name."
Then now that you have updated everyone, you might want to keep your eyes and ears open for more feedback and keep your mind open to revise the name again because mentioning Windows twice in the same name seems like a bafflingly silly decision, even by Internet Explorer standards. Then again, shipping with a silly name just might distract people from Internet Explorer's still-poor CSS support (as of the beta/preview releases I have tried under both Windows XP and Windows Vista).Anonymous
August 07, 2006
PingBack from http://devv.com/blog/index.php/2006/08/07/internet-explorer-7-nome-revisado/Anonymous
August 07, 2006
Great so now we can get confused about which verson you are talking about.Anonymous
August 07, 2006
PingBack from http://www.bluesparc.com/2006/08/07/revised-ie7-naming-in-windows-vista/Anonymous
August 07, 2006
I don't know if it's just me, but my biggest complaint about IE7 is that when I double click in on my desktop or try to open it, it takes a very long time to load and open my homepage (yahoo.com).
Really, that's about it. But I would like a quicker initial response and be able to use the browser as fast as I can use IE6 or firefox.Anonymous
August 07, 2006
Over on the&nbsp;Internet Explorer blog Tony Chor informs the community that Internet Explorer for Windows...Anonymous
August 07, 2006
Will IE7 save us all? Hope springs eternal but alas I fret. In fact, I pine for the days of Active Desktop when everything was to be a web page.
Is there any way, $MSFT can revive this?Anonymous
August 07, 2006
PingBack from http://honadle.com/blog/?p=295Anonymous
August 07, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 07, 2006
maybe 7# or 7.Net would have sold betterAnonymous
August 07, 2006
This is a very good blog which gives a lot of information.Anonymous
August 07, 2006
@PatriotB
If they know about a bug which can compromise the system, they should be blamed for all data loss. The company which released the product should pay a fee if they knew about the bug and didn't do anything about it. Some bugs are apparent when a program is released and yet it hasn't been fixed. This is what I don't like at all.
Or am I wrong to want a bug free product (unknown bugs are impossible to remove because they are unknown)?
In nuclear power plants like the ones the company I work for own, the system isn't even allowed to have unknown bugs and yet they manage.. wow. Must be good programmers, because it's failsafe in 99.9% of the time.Anonymous
August 07, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 07, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 07, 2006
@Mike
What I want is not a bug free system, as that is impossible to achieve. But a system with no known bugs, that is possible because the engineers here at work manage it on nuclear reactor systems.
It's all about testing, testing and some more testing. If the bug is known, remove it. If another bugg is found, remove it etc.
Lets say Microsoft release Windows Vista with a known bug which they can remove, but wont because this will delay Vista 7 months... They will release it and work on fixing it. What I want is the release to be after those 7 months. Am I more clear now or shall I continue?Anonymous
August 07, 2006
hola
hay alguien que sepa hablar español
moimoi_juana@hotmail.comAnonymous
August 07, 2006
hola
hay alguien que sepa hablar español
moimoi_juana@hotmail.comAnonymous
August 07, 2006
but but but... IE7+ sounds so cool!! I don't believe how you could ever question this name!! It's like IE7 only better!Anonymous
August 08, 2006
Há algum tempo atrás, comentei sobre o IE 7+, que seria a versão do Internet Explorer para o Windows...Anonymous
August 08, 2006
Gabriel Lozano-Morán : "Great! Now we only need to convince the .NET team to rebrand .NET Framework 3.0 to .NET Framework 2.5 "Anonymous
August 08, 2006
It doesnt matter what you call it, its still a carbon copy, rebadged version of Mozilla Firefox. Its pointless having 2 'mozillas' so I am sticking with the original and best.Anonymous
August 08, 2006
"It doesnt matter what you call it, its still a carbon copy, rebadged version of Mozilla Firefox. Its pointless having 2 'mozillas' so I am sticking with the original and best."
So which are you sticking with? Internet Explorer has features that Firefox has, okay. But Firefox has features that Internet Explorer has had way before. And imagine this, Firefox and Internet Explorer also have features that other browsers might've had.
Welcome to the world of technology where features are added because they work good, not because someone else hasn't had it.
I fail to see how Mozilla Firefox is "the original". Being based on an existing browser, introducing features several years old as though they are new...Anonymous
August 08, 2006
i'll agree with several other people here and say that your naming convention is horrible. who in their right might is going to spit all that out every time they need to say that IE is broken again, or that another bug has been found, or that the standards aren't supported for such-and-such feature?
i applaud taking out the "+", but if instead we have to put up with humongous and repeating word names, i don't know that we've gained anything.
Internet Explorer 7 for XP
Internet Explorer 7 for Vista
KISS - Keep it simple, stupid.Anonymous
August 08, 2006
I must say, that I find that the introduction of conditional comments with IE5 has been quite life-saving.
Yet on the other hand conditional comments also add bloat to each page and this bloat would tend to increase as more and more internet explorer versions become available and have therefore to be treated separately.
So - why are there no conditional comments in CSS? The syntax could be something like this:
/[IF IE 7]/
.conditional-css-code-here{}
/
The selector logic could and should be the same as with the existing html-based conditional comments.
This would be a huge help for creating layouts that work cross-browser.
Otherwise with every version of IE the header bloat for each page increases. In this way however it would only be the bloat inside of a small amount of cacheable CSS-files.
Please consider this.Anonymous
August 08, 2006
Good on ya!Anonymous
August 08, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 08, 2006
I'm probably missing the point here (new to this blog/feed for starters..) but I can't help but wonder what is wrong with just plain old "IE7" (and, in a similar manner "IE7 for Windows Vista" (etc.etc.))
Short, recognisable and to the point, surely?!
Ok, so it's just me... or is it?Anonymous
August 08, 2006
Aucune version pour linux ?
http://www.firefox.com
http://www.ubuntu.com
http://www.framasoft.com
http://www.linuxfr.comAnonymous
August 08, 2006
<<Am I more clear now or shall I continue? >>
If there's a piece of software with no known flaws, either 1> it's not been tested, 2> it doesn't perform any useful function, or 3> its marketshare is dramatically eclipsed by "buggy" competitors that have more features that satisfy more user needs.Anonymous
August 08, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 08, 2006
I've said it here before, and I'm sure you've read it elsewhere, but it needs to be said again: Microsoft...Anonymous
August 08, 2006
PingBack from http://nizhongmin.com/2006/08/08/ie7-on-vista-no-more-plus/Anonymous
August 08, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 08, 2006
@PatriotB
I see now.. and yes I was quite wrong in wanting a known bugfree system.
"Are you asserting that your company believes it has no unknown bugs? It is highly, highly unlikely that your system has zero unknown bugs."
Well by swedish law they are not allowed to have any kown bugs in the system which controls the nuclear power plants.
I see that this is highly unlikely, but I can't see how they can have known bugs when by law they can't have bugs. Not even the mechanical system is allowed to have unknown errors/faults , but if its unknown.. it's impossible to fix it if it's there.
But my point is now.. I was really wrong. Thanks for the information! =)Anonymous
August 08, 2006
PingBack from http://www.backwhack.com/2006/08/07/ie7-on-vista-no-more-plus/Anonymous
August 08, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 09, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 09, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 09, 2006
PingBack from http://jowra.com/journal/2006/08/internet-explorer-7-revised-naming/Anonymous
August 09, 2006
hghAnonymous
August 09, 2006
windows fistaAnonymous
August 09, 2006
hnhgfvdvdvcAnonymous
August 10, 2006
from a QA standpoint this is a mess.
ie naming is already a problem look at what is possible to fin on users machines now:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/164539/en-us
rules for product name:
1. it must be searchable on web
- that make "+" a bust)
- that make new name a bust
2. it must be easy to write up in requirements, specs,test cases and issue tracking.
- that make new name a bust
3, 4, 5........? ideas
Anonymous
August 10, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 10, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 10, 2006
@moimoi, Oneda, linux, Lothar and probably more of you people...
I come to an american blog and expect to see questions in english, not german, spanish or any other language.
Microsoft is in Redmond, so my guess is that the IE Team there can't understand you're questions.
I tried some translation tools and none of them was satisfactory enough for me to understand what you people asked for.Anonymous
August 11, 2006
it aint :-) that hard...
FTP seems to be non functional, and attempt to revert back cause an even bigger headache. was this intentional to make FTP so nonfunctional ?
yesterday I was with an acquaintance to attendance[help?]. That had installed 7 beta for the new Explorer. With this version it was not possible to access files and files by ftp in the Web and/or to transfer , like I [was] from the Explorer 6, and the previous versions was [that were] used. Also click the switching surface [command button?]: Ftp side in the Explorer do not open brought desired success. I regard that a backward step in the technology, if one must do in the future without such functions. Written stands: Internet Explorer 7 (IE7) beta 3 was developed, in order to facilitate the everyday tasks to make dynamic safety and protective functions available as well as to improve the development platform and the manageableness. more eider with this version no file transmission was by ftp possible, which I not feel is an improvement , probably however as restriction, which appears to be very seriously. But one maybe dre errors still repaired…. By the way, the circumstance arose on two systems with my acquaintance, so which I do not assume that, which concerns it a Installation error here. Further it is sad, which is, also not more repaired after the re-establishment of the old Explorers of the errors. one must the operating system newly thereafter up-play… I would like to known, whether is deliberate, or purposely, that one can not transfer more Data completely normally with ftp, like before, because functioned the no more… Yours sincerely, Lothar BennertAnonymous
August 11, 2006
PingBack from http://www.makeyougohmm.com/20060811/3657/Anonymous
August 11, 2006
there are a lot of rumors about windows vista, anyone can tell me what's true and what's not??
some say most computers wont even work with the new windows, is that true???
http://www.cruisetopics.comAnonymous
August 12, 2006
&nbsp; Microsoft has decided not to use the &quot;plus&quot; symbol to differentiate the version of Internet Explorer (IE) 7.0 that is bundled into Windows Vista. Microsoft officials say they listened to customers (which should be the correctAnonymous
August 12, 2006
42 pages of comments for such an interesting piece of news. Here's a another scoop, please don't tell anyone about it : the next version of Firefox will be called Firefox 2, without plus or minus. Incredible, isn't it ?Anonymous
August 12, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 14, 2006
je souhaite recevoir unr version d'IE7 pour XP afin d'avoir une ample idée sur ce moteur de recherche et pouvoir le juger à sa juste valeur
MerçiAnonymous
August 14, 2006
je souhaite recevoir unr version d'IE7 pour XP afin d'avoir une ample idée sur ce moteur de recherche et pouvoir le juger à sa juste valeur
MerçiAnonymous
August 14, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 15, 2006
Great job!
The Visual Studio team should take a leaf out of your book and quit using names like "MSDN Premium with Visual Studio 2005 Team Edition for Software Developers" (no joke).
Simpler is almost always better, and Internet Explorer 7 is a fantastic product. You've done yourselves proud.Anonymous
August 17, 2006
What is the benifit? Try to include some new features of Firefox :-)Anonymous
August 18, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 18, 2006
okAnonymous
August 19, 2006
PingBack from http://www.windowsobserver.com/2006/08/19/in-and-around-the-net-fallon-part-deux/Anonymous
October 05, 2006
PingBack from http://cdjaco.wordpress.com/2006/10/05/what-i-did-during-my-summer-vacation/Anonymous
November 08, 2006
As you may have seen on the Windows Vista blog , we released Windows Vista to manufacturing today! Wahoo!!!Anonymous
January 02, 2007
PingBack from http://portoogle.lescigales.org/2006/08/08/plein-de-lecture-trop-de-fatigue-alors-voici-des-liens-en-vrac/Anonymous
January 11, 2007
PingBack from http://www.bluesparc.com/2007/01/11/revised-ie7-naming-in-windows-vista/Anonymous
June 19, 2007
IE7 - Windows Vista に含まれる IE7 の名前の変更Anonymous
January 15, 2008
PingBack from http://mm8.za.net/?p=993Anonymous
March 19, 2008
PingBack from http://desktopcomputerreviewsblog.info/ieblog-revised-ie7-naming-in-windows-vista/Anonymous
June 19, 2008
PingBack from http://emiliano.bigpicturesite.com/internetexplorer6versus7.htmlAnonymous
May 29, 2009
PingBack from http://paidsurveyshub.info/story.php?title=ieblog-revised-ie7-naming-in-windows-vistaAnonymous
May 31, 2009
PingBack from http://outdoorceilingfansite.info/story.php?id=1648Anonymous
May 31, 2009
PingBack from http://outdoorceilingfansite.info/story.php?id=19284Anonymous
June 01, 2009
PingBack from http://woodtvstand.info/story.php?id=2459Anonymous
June 01, 2009
PingBack from http://indoorgrillsrecipes.info/story.php?id=506Anonymous
June 02, 2009
PingBack from http://patiochairsite.info/story.php?id=30544Anonymous
June 08, 2009
PingBack from http://toenailfungusite.info/story.php?id=16Anonymous
June 08, 2009
PingBack from http://hairgrowthproducts.info/story.php?id=4324Anonymous
June 09, 2009
PingBack from http://quickdietsite.info/story.php?id=2470Anonymous
June 12, 2009
PingBack from http://cellulitecreamsite.info/story.php?id=6493Anonymous
June 13, 2009
PingBack from http://homelightingconcept.info/story.php?id=3586Anonymous
June 16, 2009
PingBack from http://workfromhomecareer.info/story.php?id=19054Anonymous
June 16, 2009
PingBack from http://topalternativedating.info/story.php?id=2791