Problems with Internet Explorer: A review reconsidered

Anytime you give product a fantastic thumbs up, as I did with InternetExplorer 5.0, there are bound to be a few bruised readers who acquire theproduct only to discover that it's not all that it's cracked up to be. Sowas the case with IE 5.0. Though most of the problems I've seen have beenrelated to horrific download times, a few people have complained aboutspecific features (or lack thereof) in the software, and while I can agreeor disagree with the complaints, it wasn't until a note from reader BruceMcKee that I began to see a trend.

When I wrote my review of IE 5.0, I had three "issues" that I wanted tocover. The worst one made it into the review. This is the "new window" bug,whose description I originally accompanied with a scathing attack on the IE5.0 programmers, who ignored my pleas when I complained again and againabout the problem. In fact, I was given an ultimatum by the beta coordinatorat one point, that I would be kicked off the beta if I didn't stopcomplaining. When the review appeared (after IE 5.0 went Gold), I was indeedremoved quietly from the beta. However, since then, I've gotten email afteremail from readers complaining about this very bug.

If you find this bug infuriating as I do, please write [email protected] tell them it's a problem. If enough people complain, they will fix it.

Anyway, Bruce also had two other problems with IE 5.0 and, notcoincidentally, these problems were also on my original "issues" list when Iwrote my review. The first problem occurs when you attempt to load a Webpage and it gives you that "friendly" new "page is not available" error.But then you try to reload the page and it works fine on the second or thirdattempt. I have no idea why this happens; It's sporadic and hard to track.

The second problem is even more insidious: You type in a URL, say somethingbogus like www.dkifdjfl.com. IE 5.0 whirs for a bit, attempting to load thepage, and then it throws up the "page not found" error message. But it alsoreplaces the URL you typed with "res://shdoclc.dll/dnserror.htm". This isinfuriating, because most of the time you make a typing mistake like this,you're only off by one letter. But when IE 5.0 replaces the text you typewith this ridiculous string of garbage, you are forced to retype the wholeURL again. There is a workaround: This bug only surfaces when you do nottype "http://" at the beginning of the URL. If you do type this, your URLwill not be overwritten with the garbage string.

So, why didn't I mention this in my review?

During the IE 5.0 beta, I was using a workstation on my home network thatwas connected to the Internet through a proxy server. With the proxy, Ioften see these sorts of problems, so I figured it was related to that. WhenI wrote the review, however, I was unable to reproduce the first bug at allon a machine that had a direct cable modem connection to the Internet. Andwith the second bug, I wasn't yet aware of the "http://" issue: I must havebeen adding that to bogus URLs as I tested and I just figured they had fixedit in the final release. I never saw the garbage string problem whilewriting the review.

But it's there. Oh yes.

So, there are now three issues that I consider problematic with IE 5.0. Istill strongly recommend downloading and installing the browser, however, asit is still a quantum improvement over previous releases. On the other hand,you may want to wait for the inevitable first service pack, as Brucesuggests. If you feel like having a positive impact on this release, I doask again that you write [email protected] and complain about theseproblems. They are real bugs and at least one of them was routinely ignoredduring the lengthy IE 5.0 beta cycle. I'm currently working to see that theyget fixed before the release of Windows 2000, but I can only do so much bymyself.

Thanks to Bruce McKee and everyone else that wrote in about IE 5.0. I willbe adding these bugs to the appropriate section of the IE 5.0 review laterthis week.

--Pau