View Full Version : The Most Irritating Internet Explorer Bug Ever Created
Jason Dunn
09-01-2003, 08:00 PM
<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.lockergnome.com' target='_blank'>http://www.lockergnome.com</a><br /><br /></div>I try to keep everything on this site Pocket PC-related, at least tenuously, but sometimes I run across something so important I feel I should share it: for the past couple of months, I've been irritated by the fact that on all sorts of sites (PPCT included), small images wouldn't load. It's irritating to get a page full of small red X's, but even more so when it's your own site and server. At the time, I was using NetCaptor, so I emailed them to ask what as going on. They couldn't explain it. Then I switched to using MyIE2, and it kept happening. I hunted for an explanation myself, but gave up. Then I saw this note in a recent issues of <a href="http://www.lockergnome.com">Lockergnome Windows Daily</a>, and guess what? I worked! If you have the same irritating bug, check this out:<br /><br />"...he directed me to a specific thread on tek-tips.com. I was skeptical, but (having nothing to lose) the tweak was applied. This involves a little Registry diving, paddling to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE \ SOFTWARE \ Classes \ PROTOCOLS \ Name-Space Handler. It's suggested that 'http', 'https', and 'ftp' don't belong there - at least, with IE6 SP1 (when the bug was introduced). Leaving only the 'mk' key intact, we're instructed to restart our PC for any changes to take effect. I did. It worked. And there was much rejoicing. Immediately, I blitzed the URL to other friends who were facing the same bugaboo. So far, so good, so happy."<br /><br />In my case, I had to delete an FTP key. I can still FTP normally, but now I can see every image on the page. How on earth do glaringly obvious bugs like this slip based the QA guys working on Internet Explorer? Does Microsoft really not care any more now that they've conquered the browser market? :|
entropy1980
09-01-2003, 08:06 PM
How on earth do glaringly obvious bugs like this slip based the QA guys working on Internet Explorer? :|
what QA guys? :bad-words:
Janak Parekh
09-01-2003, 08:29 PM
Does Microsoft really not care any more now that they've conquered the browser market? :|
They don't. :evil: IE6 still has tons of CSS bugs (especially CSS2 support), and it holds up web development, but Microsoft hasn't lifted a finger to fix them. (IE for the Mac doesn't have them, so we know Microsoft's capable of writing a real renderer.) Don't even start me with the MIME types bug, either. Finally, they're leaning towards not releasing new standalone versions anymore -- you'd have to get a new OS to get the latest IE. While that's fine for me, it's not fine for customers of mine who aren't going to migrate OSes every year or two.
That's why I use Mozilla (Firebird, to be precise). Standards-compliant, tabbed browsing, ad-blocking, relatively secure. Oh, and I've never had this bug. :lol:
--janak
bcre8v2
09-01-2003, 08:44 PM
Jason, Thanks for the tip.
Any thoughts on how those keys got there?
I have checked 3 of my systems (all XP running IE 6 sp1) and none have those protocols.
-Steve
Jason Dunn
09-01-2003, 08:54 PM
That's why I use Mozilla (Firebird, to be precise). Standards-compliant, tabbed browsing, ad-blocking, relatively secure. Oh, and I've never had this bug. :lol:
Does Mozilla have an auto-complete function? I was using Opera for a while, but the lack of an auto-complete just killed it for me...
Jason Dunn
09-01-2003, 08:55 PM
Jason, Thanks for the tip. Any thoughts on how those keys got there?
No clue - I'm not sure if it's a third party software issue, a patch + 3rd party software, or what. 8O
petvas
09-01-2003, 09:07 PM
Jason,
It would be better to submit this issue to the Product Support Services. They wouldb be very happy too resolve the issue. Microsoft is committed on Quality and Customer satisfaction. Internet Explorer is constantly improving and we are gonna see great innovation coming the next years...
Jason Dunn
09-01-2003, 09:15 PM
Jason,
It would be better to submit this issue to the Product Support Services. They wouldb be very happy too resolve the issue. Microsoft is committed on Quality and Customer satisfaction. Internet Explorer is constantly improving and we are gonna see great innovation coming the next years...
No offense, but I hardly think I'm the first one to notice this - and it Microsoft doesn't already know about it, shame on them.
Jeff Rutledge
09-01-2003, 09:18 PM
Jason, not to stray too far off topic, but what made you switch from NetCaptor to MyIE2? I'm using NC now, but am always looking for new options. (I'm not at home right now so I can't try it out.)
sponge
09-01-2003, 09:22 PM
Does Mozilla have an auto-complete function? I was using Opera for a while, but the lack of an auto-complete just killed it for me...
It's had it for as long as I can remember. Check out the latest nightly of Firebird. I haven't looked back since Opera (IE before that)
sfjlittel
09-01-2003, 09:24 PM
That's why I use Mozilla (Firebird, to be precise). Standards-compliant, tabbed browsing, ad-blocking, relatively secure. Oh, and I've never had this bug. :lol:
Does Mozilla have an auto-complete function? I was using Opera for a while, but the lack of an auto-complete just killed it for me...
I am not really sure what you mean (I can think of several things that match this discription) If you type an url you get a history of the urls you typed (not inline like internet explorer 4.xx, but a "dropdownlist". You can also choose to remember forms you have filled out.
petvas
09-01-2003, 09:28 PM
Jason,
It would be better to submit this issue to the Product Support Services. They wouldb be very happy to resolve the issue. Microsoft is committed on Quality and Customer satisfaction. Internet Explorer is constantly improving and we are gonna see great innovation coming the next years...
No offense, but I hardly think I'm the first one to notice this - and it Microsoft doesn't already know about it, shame on them.
Sometimes we see things that Development Teams don't...
I never had such issue and I have searched our PSS Database about it...
Users should be reporting bugs to Microsoft. How do you expect MS to improve the quality if they don't know...
mhowie
09-01-2003, 09:52 PM
Check out the latest nightly of Firebird. I haven't looked back since Opera (IE before that)
So the latest versions of Firebird are stable enough to run as one's primary browser? I've toyed with Mozilla during its development path, but it never matched IE6 in terms of browsing speed (nor does Opera, for that matter, although its supplementary browsing aids-- e.g., mouse gestures, et al.-- are wonderful).
Anyway, I have been using the MyIE2 add-on? for several weeks and have really found it to be wonderful. I have everything Opera provides from a usability standpoint and retain the speed qualities of the underlying engine, IE6 (I've yet to apply the XP SP1 or the IE/OE SP's due to the bad pub concerning newly introduced bugs, etc.).
Any comparisons from a speed perspective between the nascent Firebird browser?
Thanks,
CHeavyarms
09-01-2003, 09:56 PM
It was exactly the same... it happened when i installed the Windows XP SP1, and i instantly knew that there was a problem. That was about a year ago, and it didnt go away even after i reinstalled SP1 and did a Windows XP repair. It didnt stop till i had formated my harddrive when i upgraded my computer... really annoying. I did use some alternatives such as Mozilla in the meantime.
Janak Parekh
09-01-2003, 10:44 PM
I am not really sure what you mean (I can think of several things that match this discription) If you type an url you get a history of the urls you typed (not inline like internet explorer 4.xx, but a "dropdownlist".
I believe there's an option to do "inline autocomplete", as well -- at least in the full version of Mozilla. I'm sure Firebird can do it too, but I don't see any UI controls for it (one would have to edit about:config). I prefer the dropdown myself...
So the latest versions of Firebird are stable enough to run as one's primary browser?
I use the previously-released version, v0.6.1, as I don't want to use a nightly, and it's quite stable. Moz 1.4, BTW, is decently fast, although not quite as fast as Firebird.
MyIE2 does look quite nice, though, very similar to Avant Browser (www.avantbrowser.com). I never got into any of the IE replacements, as I had switched to Moz 0.9 back when, and I've gotten very used to the Netscape-ish UIs once again.
--janak
Zensbikeshop
09-01-2003, 11:00 PM
I had that exact sam eproblem with IE and never found a solution - it drove me nuts!
I used Opera for a while but it's really flakey - would crash regularly particularly when shutting down.
I'm currently using Avant Browser which give sme the tabbed browsing i wanted from Opera but with the stability of IE.
Somebody mentionned that they thought IE was faster... I really thimk Opera is quicker particularly when moving back throigh pages as it seems to cache pages more effectively.
I may try Firebird again as it's been a while.
EDIT - Trying Firebird now; improved massively since the last time I tried it.
acronym
09-01-2003, 11:12 PM
Microsoft knows they are losing the battle for performance browsers on consumers' computers against open developers such as mozilla. This is why they killed the project for Apple OS X. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who has reverted back to IE after trying Safari, Firebird or my personal fav - Camino.
Microsoft just can't compete against the combined resources and the die-hard fanatism of these groups.
Ed Hansberry
09-01-2003, 11:27 PM
How on earth do glaringly obvious bugs like this slip based the QA guys working on Internet Explorer? Does Microsoft really not care any more now that they've conquered the browser market? :|
Seems they do know about it. http://support.microsoft.com/?id=312496 Sp1 though for IE6 still doesn't fix it for me.
petvas
09-01-2003, 11:37 PM
It seems to me that Microsoft is offering a solution to this issue...
PetiteFlower
09-02-2003, 05:31 AM
We need a microsoft cheerleader emoticon, apparantly....
:roll:
JonnoB
09-02-2003, 07:22 AM
Do any of the IE replacements support ActiveX controls natively?
We need a microsoft cheerleader emoticon, apparantly....
:roll:
Yes, petvas could use it for his avatar. :)
Do any of the IE replacements support ActiveX controls natively?
If you're referring to Mozilla, Phoenix, etc then no. That would be feature bloat. There are plugins for ActiveX though.
JonnoB
09-02-2003, 07:35 AM
If you're referring to Mozilla, Phoenix, etc then no. That would be feature bloat. There are plugins for ActiveX though.
That kills it for me. I have too many server-based web applications that execute as a browser loaded control.
Does Microsoft really not care any more now that they've conquered the browser market? :|
They don't. :evil: IE6 still has tons of CSS bugs (especially CSS2 support), and it holds up web development, but Microsoft hasn't lifted a finger to fix them. (IE for the Mac doesn't have them, so we know Microsoft's capable of writing a real renderer.) Don't even start me with the MIME types bug, either. Finally, they're leaning towards not releasing new standalone versions anymore -- you'd have to get a new OS to get the latest IE. While that's fine for me, it's not fine for customers of mine who aren't going to migrate OSes every year or two.
That's why I use Mozilla (Firebird, to be precise). Standards-compliant, tabbed browsing, ad-blocking, relatively secure. Oh, and I've never had this bug. :lol:
--janak
>(especially CSS2 support)
YES. UGH. IE's rendering engine is crap. The box model particularly irks me. Border and padding are counted in 'width' in IE. Why? WHY?!?! :(
That kills it for me. I have too many server-based web applications that execute as a browser loaded control.
Examples, if I may ask?
JonnoB
09-02-2003, 07:49 AM
That kills it for me. I have too many server-based web applications that execute as a browser loaded control.
Examples, if I may ask?
Most are internally developed applications, so an example would be worthless to describe publicly. Many of the controls are really Win32 apps that use a browser as a container and distribution mechanism. The browser is a good way to distribute applications in a secure manner. I guess they could have been Java apps, but some of the applications have strict performance requirements that the Sun and MS JVM couldn't meet.
Check out the latest nightly of Firebird. I haven't looked back since Opera (IE before that)
So the latest versions of Firebird are stable enough to run as one's primary browser?
I wouldn't say so.. they're development builds, after all. I currently have 0.6 and have not had any problems with it. Grab the latest release (0.6.1?) and see what you think. :)
mbeatle
09-02-2003, 01:13 PM
I've been using Firebird (aka phoenix) for several months now and I couldn't be happier with it. Tabbed browsing alone is a good enough reason to switch browsers. Other things I like are the cookie management, ability to block images from specific servers, and the option to selectively view Flash content (http://ted.mielczarek.org/code/mozilla/)
DavidHorn
09-02-2003, 02:07 PM
Fantastic - thanks, Jason. I thought this was a problem with my proxy server, but apparently not!
Hyperluminal
09-02-2003, 02:36 PM
I use Firebird too.. it's great. Having tabs alone makes it impossible for me to go back to IE. ;) And since unlike Avant Browser, MyIE, etc., it doesn't use the IE rendering engine, it's much more standards-compliant, not to mention a lot safer against hackers.
To be honest, FB does have some annoying bugs, the worst of which being that it occasionally wouldn't load the updates to at least one website for a while (I had to clear the cache, nothing else worked, except for waiting). I actually wanted to switch at one point, but I found that the other browsers I tried (Mozilla 1.4 and Opera) were too bloated, and I really did like FB. :) So now I'm still using it...
pcause
09-02-2003, 02:41 PM
I haven't seen the bug you mentioned, but I thought I'd offer a word in Microsoft's defense.
First, for a very long time, when Netscape was independent, IE killed NS. All those who tried to do web sites and fought endlessly with NS should know this. MS was faster, prettier, had a richer DOM and handled malformed pages instead of just giving up.
Then came Mozilla. Does anyone remember trying to run NS 6 when it came out? It was terribly broken. It couldn't render lots of web sites that existed. The developers *assumed* that every page would strictly follow the HTML spec and be perfect! HA! And it was slow. I wasn't too surprised that it was slower than IE, but it was slower than NS 4! And, yes, I personally timed the various browsers., so I know this is true. After waiting so long for NS to try to catch up, and getting such a broken browser, many users just gave up.
In its defense, the Mozilla team has fixed this stuff and I now find that Mozilla works pretty well. As for rendering, "look and feel" is a matter of taste. What one person thinks looks great, another thinks looks terrible.
Someone said that MS doesn't have the resources to compete with the open source guys. Dream on. They have the resources. But, they have a few issues to deal with. First, MS is so widely watched and reported on and USED, that they can't just throw out releases and then say "oops, sorry". The open source stuff does not get the same level of scrutiny or criticism and MS gets. Not even close. And open source stuff gets downloaded by techies who are mostly savvy. Lots of people who barely can use a computer will try an MS beta.
Then think about the security issues. becuase MS has 97% of the browser users and is viewed as "evil" by the hacker community, any new release is immediately attacked. MS has to worry about any change and what it may do to security. Mozilla just isn't attacked. That doesn't mean it is solid and has no holes, just that it isn't attacked by the hackers. having 97% market share means you have burdens that the other guys don't.
Having defended MS, they suck as far as support goes. Someone said we should report bugs to MS. Have you tried? I have and it is painful. I've dealt with lots of SW vendors and MS just assumes you are an idiot and won't listen. And they don't get patches out as quickly as they should or could. They also don't make it easy for the developer community to know about bugs and work arounds and the like. In the end, Microsoft programmers and management need to read about "egoless programming". There could be thi to say, but you all know them....
petvas
09-02-2003, 06:05 PM
Someone said we should report bugs to MS. Have you tried? I have and it is painful. I've dealt with lots of SW vendors and MS just assumes you are an idiot and won't listen. And they don't get patches out as quickly as they should or could. They also don't make it easy for the developer community to know about bugs and work arounds and the like. In the end, Microsoft programmers and management need to read about "egoless programming". There could be thi to say, but you all know them....
Microsoft does get security patches IMMEDIATELY. If there is a bug in a program that is not security related, then it must be excessively tested before release. It the bug is critical, then a supported hotfix is made available and can be provided by the PSS. If there is a workaround for a bug (like in this case), then the patch is included in the next service pack. I find it a very good approach...
hdsalinas
09-02-2003, 06:21 PM
I have tried netsacape and Opera and went back to explorer. For me in a way less is more. When I am on the web I dont want to think that I am using a "program" I rather see it as a "window". In fact the first thing I do when I reinstal windows is to costumize the icons on the toolbar: small, no labels, no links, only the ones I use.
PetiteFlower
09-02-2003, 06:21 PM
I find it a very good approach...
You do seem to always think that....regardless of what "it" is.....
bjornkeizers
09-02-2003, 06:44 PM
Jason,
It would be better to submit this issue to the Product Support Services. They wouldb be very happy too resolve the issue. Microsoft is committed on Quality and Customer satisfaction. Internet Explorer is constantly improving and we are gonna see great innovation coming the next years...
:rotfl: :rotfl: That was the best laugh I've had in ages! You should do stand up comedy! The only thing microsoft is "commited" to is {deleted - EH} over the customers. Just look at what you pay for stuff like Windows XP or Office XP.. and don't even get me started on product activation! :snipersmile:
GO-TRIBE
09-02-2003, 06:46 PM
I have checked 3 of my systems (all XP running IE 6 sp1) and none have those protocols.
Ditto...
I've never seen this issue on any PCs at work or home (and that's quite a few). You should make sure that you're putting the blame in the right place; some 3rd party software that MS never even heard of might have put those entries into your registry where they did not belong.
Sounds to me like you're jumping on the bandwagon blaming the big-bad Microsoft rather than finding the real cause of the problem.
bjornkeizers
09-02-2003, 06:51 PM
Users should be reporting bugs to Microsoft. How do you expect MS to improve the quality if they don't know...
Microsoft broke Volkswagen's record: VW produced only 20 milion bugs...
Pixel
09-02-2003, 07:41 PM
As an ex IE 5 tester at Microsoft, I'll go ahead and defend the poor souls tirelessly testing up in Redmond.
The fact is, that if this bug was introduced too late in the dev cycle, it would be "punted" for a SP. With the code forks and last minute introductions, the IE testing team works 10-12 hours a day, sometimes sleeping in the lab just to get up off their sleeping bags on the floor to test the next build in the morning. Each tester has hundreds of scenarios and regress bug checks everytime there is a build, which is sometimes 3 a day.
I tested a in 98-99, at that time those testers fought tooth an nail to have certain bugs fixed, yelling matches are an everyday event between bosses, their testers and the devs. These guys work hard and are very dedicated to the product and the users they represent. We were told "You are not just "testers" you are the consumer advocates for a quality product".
I know they check the microsoft newsgroups, that might be the best way to get your voice heard.
Janak Parekh
09-02-2003, 07:58 PM
Do any of the IE replacements support ActiveX controls natively?
Nope, and they will never do so, either. Your best bet is to get one of the IE wrappers, like MyIE2 or Avant Browser.
Yes, petvas could use it for his avatar. :)
Come on guys, cut petvas some slack. I believe he works for MS, and he does along with a lot of other extremely intelligent guys. The ones to fault here, I think, are the higher-ups who have decided to not evolve IE and fix things like the CSS bugs. I'm sure there are programmers in the organization who would love to fix the IE control once and for all.
--janak
Janak Parekh
09-02-2003, 08:02 PM
Then came Mozilla. Does anyone remember trying to run NS 6 when it came out? It was terribly broken. It couldn't render lots of web sites that existed.
This was far more AOL/Netscape's fault than the Mozilla guys' fault. Mozilla 1.0 and 1.1 were very stable, unlike Netscape 6.
Then think about the security issues. becuase MS has 97% of the browser users and is viewed as "evil" by the hacker community, any new release is immediately attacked. MS has to worry about any change and what it may do to security. Mozilla just isn't attacked. That doesn't mean it is solid and has no holes, just that it isn't attacked by the hackers.
This is debatable, actually. MS, historically, architected their code for single-user, disconnected environments. A lot of the vulnerable code is legacy code from those days. If you look at Windows Server 2003, it's clear that MS has done a lot of redesign work to make it more secure; for example, IE ships by default in an "Enhanced Security" mode that mitigates 90% of the patches out there. Some of us believe Microsoft should have been doing this much, much earlier. WS2k3 is the first promising step in MS's security initiatives. Let's hope they keep on moving in that direction; otherwise, their reputation will continue to take a beating.
--janak
In fact the first thing I do when I reinstal windows is to costumize the icons on the toolbar: small, no labels, no links, only the ones I use.
Easy to do with Phoenix. :)
petvas
09-02-2003, 09:29 PM
Jason,
It would be better to submit this issue to the Product Support Services. They wouldb be very happy too resolve the issue. Microsoft is committed on Quality and Customer satisfaction. Internet Explorer is constantly improving and we are gonna see great innovation coming the next years...
:rotfl: :rotfl: That was the best laugh I've had in ages! You should do stand up comedy! The only thing microsoft is "commited" to is {deleted - EH} over the customers. Just look at what you pay for stuff like Windows XP or Office XP.. and don't even get me started on product activation! :snipersmile:
If you feel good blaming Microsoft or me, that's fine, please continue doing that...
I am very sorry that you feel that way and I hope someday you learn that insulting and accusing people is not the way to go..
Maybe I should contact Jason to remove your insulting posting. I won't do it because I RESPECT everybody... I expect you do the same...
If you don't like Microsoft's products you can stop using them. If you continue using them, you must at least admit that they are the best for you. If not, why do you use them?
Kevin Daly
09-02-2003, 09:34 PM
Do any of the IE replacements support ActiveX controls natively?
I don't think they do, so that would be another reason to use them :D
(ActiveX on the browser is a security hole you can live without, trust me).
I'm sad to see what IE has come to, and I don't mean in terms of bugs (these come and go, eventually): I've been an enthusiastic supporter since IE 3.something, especially while Netscape was releasing endless pointless 4.x revisions that piled on unnecessary add-ons while refusing to do anything about a half-baked and ill-thought version of DHTML, compared with which IE was simply marvellous.
But with the version 7 generation Mozilla and Opera among others have caught up with and surpassed IE in most areas (although I prefer the XML support in IE: it's more intelligent). The idea that full CSS2 compliance (for example) could not be added to IE without a new version of the OS (a claim I have seen made) is just laughable (there's only a handful of features missing or defective, but oh how annoying they are).
Microsoft seem to be deliberately treading water on IE, possibly because they want to give people an incentive to adopt smart client solutions (although I think that's a paranoid assumption...but then I used to think AOL had Netscape stick with a lousy version of DHTML because they wanted to promote Java, so at least I'm consistentlyparanoid).
Whatever the reason (sheer inattention?) it's a shame, because IE earned its dominant place not through skullduggery but because it was simply better than the alternatives. Sadly this is no longer true...and this is even more galling because we are so close to the situation many of us dreamed of a few years ago, where all mainstream browsers would support a rich set of features in a consistent and compatible way.
Microsoft should be ashamed of a situation that will be forcing web designers to write JavaScript exception code to cater for IE as the Annoying-Less-Capable-Browser-We-Have-To-Allow-For as they once had to do for Netscape. 0X
petvas
09-02-2003, 09:35 PM
I find it a very good approach...
You do seem to always think that....regardless of what "it" is.....
Why don't you just say what you mean and stop implying things? I do like Microsoft, I believe they are the best and yes, there bugs, they will always be here...
Janak Parekh
09-02-2003, 09:36 PM
I don't think they do, so that would be another reason to use them :D
(ActiveX on the browser is a security hole you can live without, trust me).
Not always. They're a boon for rapid software deployment internally within corporate environments, especially if you're based on Win32. You can push new applications to your intranet without any extensive work. However, it's not a bad idea to disable ActiveX in such a corporate environment for untrusted sites, which, fortunately, is very easy to do in IE.
--janak
redifrogger
09-02-2003, 10:02 PM
:soapbox:
I'm not going to get into the IE bug debate, but PetiteFlower, I do believe Petvas is correct - you're not contributing to the debate, just making negative implications.
Okay, I'm done.
Janak Parekh
09-02-2003, 10:11 PM
Everyone, can we please tone the debate down a couple of notches? Let's please avoid it from getting personal, otherwise we'll have to lock the thread.
thanks,
--janak
petvas
09-02-2003, 10:27 PM
I am very sorry if I contributed in any way negatively...
The two posts were insulting to me and I should at least reply...
Jason Dunn
09-02-2003, 11:22 PM
Do any of the IE replacements support ActiveX controls natively?
If you're referring to Mozilla, Phoenix, etc then no. That would be feature bloat. There are plugins for ActiveX though.
You're calling supporting ActiveX controls "feature bloat"? Pft. Forget it then - Mozilla is not the browser for me then. There are lots of sites I visit that download an ActiveX control for enhanced functionality. ActiveX is the most innovative way to distribute Web-based applications ever created!
Sheesh. I really can't have it all I guess. :roll:
petvas
09-02-2003, 11:28 PM
Internet Explorer is the best browser but we also need the competition. I do not see any and that's very disappointing... Competition leads to faster innovation...
Jason Dunn
09-02-2003, 11:30 PM
I am very sorry if I contributed in any way negatively...
The two posts were insulting to me and I should at least reply...
You're right, they were insulting, and I'm dissappointed to see them. PetiteFlower should know better, and Quintin, well, he's just Quintin. :wink: But believe it or not, most of the time when you're insulted, the WORST thing you can do is reply. I've learned this from 11 years of online community involvement, although I sometimes do forget and get dragged into fights. :|
Anyway, sometimes ignoring people is the best way to deal with them - because their post will get buried quickly enough in the thread, but when you respond you give them power by raising the issue again. Something to think about.
You're calling supporting ActiveX controls "feature bloat"?
Yes, I am. Not everyone has a real use for them. If they do, they can install the plugin.
Ed Hansberry
09-02-2003, 11:53 PM
You're calling supporting ActiveX controls "feature bloat"?
Yes, I am. Not everyone has a real use for them. If they do, they can install the plugin.Yes they do. Windows Update depends on it and everyone running Windows needs it.
Just because you don't need it doesn't mean it is bloat. :)
PetiteFlower
09-03-2003, 01:07 AM
Why don't you just say what you mean and stop implying things? I do like Microsoft, I believe they are the best and yes, there bugs, they will always be here...
I wasn't insulting you, I was simply pointing out that it seems like every time someone has a (usually perfectly valid!) complaint about MS, you are the first to jump to their defense. When someone disses MS, they are not insulting you personally! Yet you seem to feel like they are and that you have to defend yourself, to the point of not acknowledging that which is very obvious to users around the world--that Microsoft is often unresponsive to the complaints of users, that they release very buggy software, and are slow to fix, or even respond to notifications about, bugs. Other people on this site work for MS or are MVPs, but they are not at all shy about pointing out the problems with the company when it needs to be done, you are the only one who seems to ALWAYS be on the side of old Billy and never wants to admit that there could be anything wrong at all with his products or business practices!
Anyway I noticed it and felt the need to bring it to your attention, that you are coming across as a cheerleader. I'm sorry if it sounded insulting, that wasn't my intention.
Oh and I had this bug on my computer too, so THANKS JASON for posting the fix! I had FTP and HTTP keys that I had to delete.
Janak Parekh
09-03-2003, 01:39 AM
You're calling supporting ActiveX controls "feature bloat"? Pft. Forget it then - Mozilla is not the browser for me then. There are lots of sites I visit that download an ActiveX control for enhanced functionality. ActiveX is the most innovative way to distribute Web-based applications ever created!
I'm curious as to which sites you visit that use ActiveX heavily. About the one that I had noticed was MSN Money; almost every other site I use has no ActiveX, and probably won't, as it doesn't support Macs, UNIX, or any other platform. I do still occasionally launch IE, but I'd say about maybe 5 minutes a week.
As for the most innovative, it's certainly one of the most convenient in recent years, but I would say it's an technological evolution more than an original innovation. ActiveX downloads, Java applets, and .NET bundles all fit within the "embeddable application" category, but they all evolved from plugins.
--janak
Kevin Daly
09-03-2003, 01:50 AM
I don't think they do, so that would be another reason to use them :D
(ActiveX on the browser is a security hole you can live without, trust me).
Not always. They're a boon for rapid software deployment internally within corporate environments, especially if you're based on Win32. You can push new applications to your intranet without any extensive work. However, it's not a bad idea to disable ActiveX in such a corporate environment for untrusted sites, which, fortunately, is very easy to do in IE.
--janak
Point taken Janak, but for the same purpose now you'd be much better off deploying a .NET smart client solution in those circumstances.
(Of course those won't work in non-IE browsers either, but I'd definitely advocate them as a better alternative than ActiveX, especially since Windows XP SP1 gave the Framework a bit of a boost onto the desktop).
PS. I promise I will not nest any quotes below this level 0X
About ActiveX...
It's pretty much ehm.. how to say nicely... trash? Ok, trash. It works only on x86 Windows machines, no? No support for UNIX, Linux, Mac, etc.. This goes totally against what the web is all about!
You're calling supporting ActiveX controls "feature bloat"?
Yes, I am. Not everyone has a real use for them. If they do, they can install the plugin.Yes they do. Windows Update depends on it and everyone running Windows needs it.
Just because you don't need it doesn't mean it is bloat. :)
You have to have IE to do Windows Update I believe, not just ActiveX. This can always be done manually though, or you can use IE only for updating your windows (as several people I know do).
maximus
09-03-2003, 02:03 AM
About ActiveX...
It's pretty much ehm.. how to say nicely... trash? Ok, trash. It works only on x86 Windows machines, no? No support for UNIX, Linux, Mac, etc.. This goes totally against what the web is all about!
Well, I wouldn't say so. It is not the fault of activeX that it does not support linux. Blame linux for not making an activeX version of their own :wink:
Imagine all those secure banking transactions servers without activeX controls. That will be a real mess.
Internet Explorer is constantly improving and we are gonna see great innovation coming the next years...
I couldn't help but laugh when I read this.
Constantly improving? IE 4 to IE 5 wasn't much of a change, nor was IE 5 to IE 6, unless I'm just not paying attention. I'm talking interface changes, new features and such, to make browsing easier and more efficient, not bugfixes and security updates. Try Phoenix and / or Mozilla, then go back to IE. It doesn't look so impressive.
Internet Explorer is the best browser but we also need the competition. I do not see any and that's very disappointing... Competition leads to faster innovation...
If you don't see any competition, you're obviously not looking.
Phoenix (http://www.mozilla.org/products/firebird/)(now called firebird)
Mozilla (http://www.mozilla.org/)
Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org/)
Opera (http://www.opera.com/download/)
Netscape (http://www.netscape.com/download/)
There are more... Amaya, lynx, and so on and so on.
Jason Dunn
09-03-2003, 06:02 AM
I'm curious as to which sites you visit that use ActiveX heavily.
It's not a question of one site using it heavily, it's a matter of the number of of sites out there using it to deploy applications. Flash is the perfect example of this - it's a fast and easy to install, and not confusing for users. I've also seen it used at www.vistaprint.com - they have a killer browser-based business card design application. Asking a user to download an application, shut down the browser, install the app, then come back to the site is not a reasonable course of action.
People who don't see the simplicity and beauty of ActiveX deployments are usually skilled geeks who don't remember what it's like to be a clueless newbie who wants things to be simple. These are the same people who don't think there's anything unusual about downloading a nightly build of a browser. :roll:
That's my last comment on this - some people here are taking this browser thing religiously. :|
bjornkeizers
09-03-2003, 07:12 AM
If you feel good blaming Microsoft or me, that's fine, please continue doing that...
I'm not blaming you. I blame Microsoft. I would never directly attack people who work at microsoft - I know they have to take abuse like this from people like me all the time :D
Maybe I should contact Jason to remove your insulting posting. I won't do it because I RESPECT everybody... I expect you do the same...
Oh that's quite allright - I'm used to that happening around here. It's not a decent conversation without Jason at least editing one or two words in my posts :lol:
If you don't like Microsoft's products you can stop using them. If you continue using them, you must at least admit that they are the best for you. If not, why do you use them?
Gee, it's funny you should say that. I recently installed Linux on every one of my home PC's. The only reason we're keeping Windows is because I can't get stuff like Rollercoaster Tycoon to run on it. If I could run some of my favorite apps in Linux - I'd switch in a hearbeat. Do not mistake this for MS love or weakness on my part.
Janak Parekh
09-03-2003, 03:39 PM
It's not a question of one site using it heavily, it's a matter of the number of of sites out there using it to deploy applications. b Flash is the perfect example of this - it's a fast and easy to install, and not confusing for users.
Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, this is a valid concern for the Internet today. Mozilla does have an equivalent "dynamic installation mechanism", called XPI, which allows you to install Mozilla UI components and hacks, although I don't think that it lets you auto-install things like Flash. The Flash plugin is actually quite easy to install, IMHO.
People who don't see the simplicity and beauty of ActiveX deployments are usually skilled geeks who don't remember what it's like to be a clueless newbie who wants things to be simple.
Agreed, but on the flip side, there is a big downside to ActiveX -- it makes spyware too darn easy to install. For the true newbie, I'd much rather not let them install components via ActiveX, because they invariably have some combination of Gator (Date Manager and PrecisionTime, anyone?), BonziBuddy, and any other number of spyware programs preinstalled. Why? They visit websites that use these programs as sponsors, and a pop up comes up saying "free software! wanna install?" They click yes, and boom! They have spyware. And it's not like the software isn't signed -- it is. :(
That's my last comment on this - some people here are taking this browser thing religiously. :|
Agreed. However, I can identify a couple of critical needs: we need better cross-platform installer solutions; InstallAnywhere (www.zerog.com), which uses Java to bootstrap itself, is a promising step, but it's too expensive or too niche (even though, I believe, it can install Win32/UNIX/whatever applications). We also need some sort of certification program whereby we can deny signing to companies that develop malicious software. The problem is to identify what is and what isn't "malicious software".
--janak
Pixel
09-03-2003, 05:33 PM
Internet Explorer is constantly improving and we are gonna see great innovation coming the next years...
I couldn't help but laugh when I read this.
Constantly improving? IE 4 to IE 5 wasn't much of a change, nor was IE 5 to IE 6, unless I'm just not paying attention. I'm talking interface changes, new features and such, to make browsing easier and more efficient, not bugfixes and security updates. Try Phoenix and / or Mozilla, then go back to IE. It doesn't look so impressive.
Internet Explorer is the best browser but we also need the competition. I do not see any and that's very disappointing... Competition leads to faster innovation...
If you don't see any competition, you're obviously not looking.
I realize that all us geeks what the cool new UI and crazy features. But MS has much more to do (as Netscape had to worry about at one time) than have a snazzy new UI. All of these features MUST be accessable by screen readers, disabled and everyone in between. Features that would break these tools set up lawsuits by these users. Take a hard look at ALL the people that use this browser and rely on it on a daily basis. All these other browsers have little if any affect on your average user, they are below the radar for these types of features.
danielzr
09-04-2003, 01:43 AM
Could someone post a URL which exhibits the issue? I've heard people complaining about the issue - but we need to be able to test a before and after senario.
Thanks
ctmagnus
09-04-2003, 03:11 AM
Could someone post a URL which exhibits the issue? I've heard people complaining about the issue - but we need to be able to test a before and after senario.
Thanks
www.ups.ca, www.compusmart.com
PetiteFlower
09-04-2003, 03:27 AM
The site that I noticed the problem the most on was this one! The little icons that denoted whether a forum or thread had new posts on it would intermittently not download.
ctmagnus
09-04-2003, 03:33 AM
The site that I noticed the problem the most on was this one! The little icons that denoted whether a forum or thread had new posts on it would intermittently not download.
I had that issue also. It was occurring more often in the mobile forums, and even that was extremely, extremely rare. But the two urls I posted would have that happen every time I went to either of them.
PetiteFlower
09-04-2003, 04:51 AM
Hm I haven't noticed it in the mobile forums at all....
Hm I haven't noticed it in the mobile forums at all....
Unless I'm mistaken, the bug doesn't effect IE 3, which PIE is based on.
ctmagnus
09-04-2003, 11:22 PM
It was on a WM2003 device I saw it. WM2003 utilizes
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01;
Windows CE; PPC; 240x320)
although this bug only affects MSIE6. What I witnessed must have been a fluke then.
timothyt
09-05-2003, 03:27 PM
How on earth do glaringly obvious bugs like this slip based the QA guys working on Internet Explorer? Does Microsoft really not care any more now that they've conquered the browser market? :|
I had all three of these keys and took it a step further to find out WHICH program had put the keys in there. As it turns out the corresponding GUID (in the HKLM\CLASSES_ROOT key was "DAPIE.DownloadAcceleratorIE.1", aka "Download Accelerator Plus" which I'm sure many of us have installed. It's a fantastic utility but it appears that it, not Microsoft, is responsible for the problem, at least on my system.
I would imagine that other download accelerators which hook into IE to intercept clicked download links would also cause the problem. Just FYI.
Any extensible product like IE is going to have problems when a plug-in has a problem. Just yesterday I tried installing a plug-in to my Apache Tomcat server which brought the whole thing crashing down. Hardly Apache's fault, but I'm sure they get their fair share of blame from people over it. I guess if we want expandable products it's just part of the game...
Cheers
Jason Dunn
11-13-2003, 02:57 AM
I had all three of these keys and took it a step further to find out WHICH program had put the keys in there. As it turns out the corresponding GUID (in the HKLM\CLASSES_ROOT key was "DAPIE.DownloadAcceleratorIE.1", aka "Download Accelerator Plus" which I'm sure many of us have installed. It's a fantastic utility but it appears that it, not Microsoft, is responsible for the problem, at least on my system.
I wish that solved the problem, but I don't have that on my system and I had the "ftp" key - and lots of broken graphic links. I'm using vanilla IE now, not MYIE2 or any other pseudo-browser.
Jason Dunn
02-24-2004, 01:06 AM
Guess what? It's FTP Voyager that introduces that FTP registry key that causes the problems! :evil: I deleted the key, rebooted, and all the images were loading. I loaded FTP Voyager, then loaded IE, and once again my graphics were broken - and the registry key was back. Grr. Contacting FTP Voyager now...
Jason Dunn
02-24-2004, 05:25 PM
Ok, FTP Voyager support got back to me, and it is an IE problem after all. Figures. :lol:
The fix is here:
http://www.rhinosoft.com/kbsearch.asp?prod=fv
Then look up reference number 1188
Microsoft has documented this problem here:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q313712
What's frustrating to me is that they have a hotfix, but you need to contact Microsoft to get it. Come on, just release the fix to the public already!
Janak Parekh
02-24-2004, 09:33 PM
What's frustrating to me is that they have a hotfix, but you need to contact Microsoft to get it. Come on, just release the fix to the public already!
I don't think they're releasing the fix. :| Note that the advisory refers to IE 5.5. This has been a known problem for quite some time... and worse, the "patch" only applies to IE 5.5.
--janak
vBulletin® v3.8.9, Copyright ©2000-2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.