Vnunet.com is reporting that the new Internet Explorer 7 beta has been keeping the Internet Explorer (IE) team busy with bug reports. Released yesterday,
users began sending reports to Microsoft within only a few hours of the
public release. Although the IE team dismissed a few of the issues,
users still continue to hammer out complaints about the new beta.
Some of the complaints about the browser include:
- A browser crash that occurs after users visit specially crafted
websites. The report alleges that the bug allows arbitrary code to be
run.
- McAfee anti-virus is unable to launch its Security Center due to a stricter URL-scheme handling in the browser.
- Anti-spyware software prevents the file "msfeeds.dll" from registering.
- Users cannot connect to certain banking sites due to a browser
check that requires IE 6. This issue is with the banking software, not
the browser.
- The "Customize Your Settings" page fails to save user settings.
- Placement of navigation items within the browser is problematic.
While I can understand the frustration of installing the browser
and having it crash in a short period of time, I can't understand why
users feel the need to troll the IE blog and rip Microsoft for the
product. After all, this is a beta application and
not something that should be used in production. Has the recent
onslaught of "beta" products such as Flickr, Google whatever, Writely,
Windows Live Messenger, and the rest of the gang changed the public's
view of what a "beta" application really is? In the world of open
source software, where releases occur early and often, beta software is
commonly used on the desktop. Firefox was used by a large user
population before it even reached version 1.0, and many of those users
will be disappointed with the limitations and deficiencies of
Microsoft's beta releases, which are designed with a distinctly
different goal. Commercial applications use a completely different
philosophy where daily, public CVS builds are not part of the
procedure, but could this be part of the problem?
A quick look at Dictionary.com
defines the word "beta" as "the preliminary or testing stage of a
software or hardware product." Microsoft gave the product to the
public for two reasons: to test (see definition) and to preview. The
company did not give the beta to the public to use as their permanent browser.
Now that I've made my stance clear, what's yours? Is Microsoft
obligated to release a near-production-quality product to the public,
even when it holds a beta tag? Would the company be best suited to
keep all of their pre-RTP applications in-house or in closed beta prior
to release? While the employees who manage the IE Blog
seem more than happy to take all of the feedback and trolls, I find it
hard to believe that Microsoft isn't questioning their current
pre-release methodology.