IE7 = Firefox? | The Coffeehouse

Pon

When I downloaded it, I thought at first, "Hey, it would appear that they just used the Firefox code and changed it a bit."
"Nah. They wouldn't do that..."
Later on, I saw that the browser type was "Mozilla: IE7; firefox; netscape" or something.

I'm rather confuzzled now :O

So, is this just a rip of the Firefox code, or is it 100% Microsoft?

DoomBringer
Doom!

Pon wrote:
When I downloaded it, I thought at first, "Hey, it would appear that they just used the Firefox code and changed it a bit."
"Nah. They wouldn't do that..."
Later on, I saw that the browser type was "Mozilla: IE7; firefox; netscape" or something.

I'm rather confuzzled now

So, is this just a rip of the Firefox code, or is it 100% Microsoft?

Microsoft's agent tag is pretty fubar, by tradition or something.

Rowan
Look, no errors.

Pon wrote:
When I downloaded it, I thought at first, "Hey, it would appear that they just used the Firefox code and changed it a bit."
"Nah. They wouldn't do that..."
Later on, I saw that the browser type was "Mozilla: IE7; firefox; netscape" or something.

I'm rather confuzzled now

So, is this just a rip of the Firefox code, or is it 100% Microsoft?

It's still very much IE, the user agent string has always begun with "Mozilla #..."

And in my opinion it doesn't look much like Firefox at all.

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

Pon wrote:
Later on, I saw that the browser type was "Mozilla: IE7; firefox; netscape" or something.

The only reason for that would be malice. Can you send us a copy of your string?

blowdart
Peek-a-boo

W3bbo wrote:

Pon wrote:Later on, I saw that the browser type was "Mozilla: IE7; firefox; netscape" or something.

The only reason for that would be malice. Can you send us a copy of your string?

I think someone is getting confused; my beta UA string is

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.1)

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

blowdart wrote:
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.1)

I'll say it again, if the browser can accept InfoPath documents or Dotnetlets then it should be in the HTTP Accept header, not the UA string.

blowdart
Peek-a-boo

W3bbo wrote:

blowdart wrote:Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.1)

I'll say it again, if the browser can accept InfoPath documents or Dotnetlets then it should be in the HTTP Accept header, not the UA string.

You can say what you like, but there's not really much restrictions put on the agent string in the RFCs, they're simply an after thought

   The User-Agent request-header field contains information about the
   user agent originating the request. This is for statistical purposes,
   the tracing of protocol violations, and automated recognition of user
   agents for the sake of tailoring responses to avoid particular user
   agent limitations. User agents SHOULD include this field with
   requests. The field can contain multiple product tokens (section 3.8)
   and comments identifying the agent and any subproducts which form a
   significant part of the user agent. By convention, the product tokens
   are listed in order of their significance for identifying the
   application.

you will notice the phrase CAN CONTAIN MULTIPLE PRODUCT TOKENS .....

spoofnozzle
Bite my shiney metal a$$!

W3bbo wrote:

blowdart wrote: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.1)

I'll say it again, if the browser can accept InfoPath documents or Dotnetlets then it should be in the HTTP Accept header, not the UA string.

http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html

Accept refers to the supported response media type, and accept may change on a request by request basis.

UserAgent refers to the client's identity and capabilities. UA can contain almost anything that's of value to the client, and is usually static.

BruceMorgan

DoomBringer wrote:

Pon wrote: When I downloaded it, I thought at first, "Hey, it would appear that they just used the Firefox code and changed it a bit."
"Nah. They wouldn't do that..."
Later on, I saw that the browser type was "Mozilla: IE7; firefox; netscape" or something.

I'm rather confuzzled now

So, is this just a rip of the Firefox code, or is it 100% Microsoft?

Microsoft's agent tag is pretty fubar, by tradition or something.

The "Mozilla/4.0" is there for backwards compat.

The IEBlog has several articles on the user agent:

Internet Explorer 7 User Agent String

A quick note on the Beta 2 Preview user agent string

Also see MSDN's Understanding User-Agent Strings, and Best Practices for detecting the Internet Explorer version.

Maurits
AKA Matthew van Eerde

BruceMorgan wrote:
The "Mozilla/4.0" is there for backwards compat.

But why was it put there in the first place?

littleguru
<3 Seattle

IE7 looks much more like Safari. Although I really don't understand why the refresh and stop button are located on the right side of the address combobox and not left, like in every other browser on this world...

PaoloM
Hypermediocrity

ChrisA wrote:
IE7 has a really attrocious UI. I wish they would fix it.

Why? I mean, why do you even care?

PaoloM
Hypermediocrity

Maurits wrote:

BruceMorgan wrote: The "Mozilla/4.0" is there for backwards compat.

But why was it put there in the first place?

Because when IE1 came out, it was aimed to Netscape compatibility.

Jason Cox
Longtime C9 Lurker

ChrisA wrote:
IE7 has a really attrocious UI. I wish they would fix it.

You'll like it better when everyone else starts copying it within a year.

alwaysmc2
It's not stupid; It's advanced!

Jason Cox wrote:

ChrisA wrote:  IE7 has a really attrocious UI. I wish they would fix it.
You'll like it better when everyone else starts copying it within a year.

haha. I really don't see what's wrong with it. "Oh noooooes! Teh favorites is on the left, but the print is on the right!" Sad

keeron
Obsessive Geek

ChrisA wrote:

IE7 has a really attrocious UI. I wish they would fix it.

I wondered where were you with your insightful one-reply-per-thread messages. Thanks man, this made my day...

Thanks ~~Beer28 ChrisA Blatzcoder nantine~~ ... err, you get the idea Smiley

Core_Dump

But I do believe you are correct. MSIE 7.0 is mostly a rip off of Firefox, this can be proven by installing Beta 1 or 2( I think) and having Firefox 1.5 installed.

Load up firefox and browse to a "Secured site" with a password and session management. Then load up Internet Explorer and visit the same address location(copy/paste) it actually seems like a slip up that has been fixed, but it stored and read from the exact same cache as Firefox 1.5

I wouldn't think much of this if Firefox and MSIE were even remotely similar in temporary internet storage, but they are not. I also had downloaded plugins for IE7 b2 from microsoft and was sent the same ones for Firefox.

This is unfortunately standard Microsoft procedure to steal the freely viewable code, add their custom OS crap to it, put it into a IE7 package and your happy with similar capability as Firefox with Microsoft's little "E" to click on.

Movie: Anti-trust, wasn't all so fake.

Same way Bill got his wife, Linus T found her in Amsterdam Red Light for free and when he offered her to others Bill decided to marry her. *ouch*

PetKnep
IE7 RTM'd yay!

Core_Dump wrote:

<wild conspiracy theory><insert the ramblings here><a touch of ad hominem attacks on bill gates>

Remember kids don't feed the trolls!

CannotResolveSymbol
{insert caption here}

Core_Dump wrote:
I wouldn't think much of this if Firefox and MSIE were even remotely similar in temporary internet storage, but they are not. I also had downloaded plugins for IE7 b2 from microsoft and was sent the same ones for Firefox.

Every browser on the planet (well, maybe not the mac ones) supports the Netscape plugin API and they all read out of each others' plugin directories. That doesn't mean they stole plugin code, though-- the plugin support comes from before Mozilla was open source (and may not even be open source now).

SecretSoftware
Code to live, but Live to code.

Here is a general observation.
When you install Firefox 2.0 by itself it runs okay without any problems.

when you install IE7 by itself, it runs okay without any problems.

When you install FireFox and IE7 , Firefox begins to hang in memory after you press the red X to close it.

Also, when you fill out forms in IE7 ,writing in the editor is slow: You write complete words, and they dont appear as fast as you type, there is a delay for some reason. This does not happen in FireFox alone, but begins to happen in FireFox when IE7 is installed.

Strange?

CannotResolveSymbol
{insert caption here}

SecretSoftware wrote:
Here is a general observation.
When you install Firefox 2.0 by itself it runs okay without any problems.

when you install IE7 by itself, it runs okay without any problems.

When you install FireFox and IE7 , Firefox begins to hang in memory after you press the red X to close it.

Also, when you fill out forms in IE7 ,writing in the editor is slow: You write complete words, and they dont appear as fast as you type, there is a delay for some reason. This does not happen in FireFox alone, but begins to happen in FireFox when IE7 is installed.

Strange?