Story: Internet Explorer 7 Beta: a first look

• 
• 

This is not about Microsoft bashing or the "Slashdot propaganda" one comment talks about. Beta versions of software (even Beta1) may only be intended for developers to get to grips with the basics of the software, but they are still essentialy released into the public domain. This may be in the form of reviews (like this one), blogs (IEs own Aaron Sauve) or just curious, tech-savvy users. The fact is, Microsoft know full well that whatever they release will be heavily scrutinised and compared to the competition. Which for me begs the question : Why release it? Is it good enough to just say... oh, well, we plan to include that next time...?
Surely even a skeleton of your "next generation" software, something you've spent millions on, should be better than your competitors present undertakings.

I don't care if the tabbed browsing is "a little clunky" or the RSS doesn't work properly... as long as it is THERE in the Beta.
Perhaps Roberts review doesn't go in depth enough... but his point that Microsoft cannot possibley expect users to keep updating their hardware to make up for flaws their overpayed testers are too lazy to spot is, for me, a valid one.
I do not think ZDnet and its writers are biased, I just think they say what they see.
I am not an administrator or a "systems designer" (*smirk*). I do not use MS products to any great depth, nor do I code for them. But I do design the hardware that all these run on. And I know that MS code is messy and highly uneconomical. Granted, most open stuff is too, but that is by definition. MS spend far too much to warrant the state of their software.
I know this is a ramble but i'd just like to point out to all the suspiciously pro-Microsoft commentators that being tops doesn't mean you're best. It does mean that you're subject to the greatest amount of scrutiny and criticism

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 

Full Talkback thread