The IEBlog "Standards and CSS in IE" at
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx is worth a
visit for those who are interested in this development.

James Pickering: http://www.jp29.org/
XHTML served via content-negotiation
RSS feed via RDF/XML

On 30 Jul 2005 10:34:49 -0700, "James Pickering" <jp29@cox.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>The IEBlog "Standards and CSS in IE" at
>http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx is worth a
>visit for those who are interested in this development.[/color]

"I wanted to make it clear that we know Beta 1 makes little progress for
web developers in improving our standards support, particularly in our
CSS implementation. "

So "M$oft care more about dancing penguins and the Fista launch than
they do about a workable product"

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 20:05:13 +0100, Andy Dingley sent:
[color=blue]
> So "M$oft care more about dancing penguins and the Fista launch than
> they do about a workable product"[/color]

Did any of us expect anything different?

--
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please destroy some files yourself.

James Pickering wrote:[color=blue]
> The IEBlog "Standards and CSS in IE" at
> http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx is worth a
> visit for those who are interested in this development.
>[/color]
IE7 will be not be available for win2000, only on XP and later. Win2000
is running on about half of the Windows systems out there. So even if IE7
were fully standards compliant and everyone upgrades to it (ha ha ha ha!),
in terms of web development it is irrelevant for years to come.

--
jmm dash list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

Jim Moe wrote:[color=blue]
> James Pickering wrote:
>[color=green]
>> The IEBlog "Standards and CSS in IE" at
>> http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx is worth a
>> visit for those who are interested in this development.
>>[/color]
> IE7 will be not be available for win2000, only on XP and later.
> Win2000 is running on about half of the Windows systems out there. So
> even if IE7 were fully standards compliant and everyone upgrades to it
> (ha ha ha ha!), in terms of web development it is irrelevant for years
> to come.[/color]

Stats I follow indicate that Win2000 is running on about 12% of systems,
not 50%, with XP running on about 65%.

Note also that IE7 will run on XP SP2, but not XP or XP SP1.

Jim Moe wrote:[color=blue]
>
> James Pickering wrote:[color=green]
> > The IEBlog "Standards and CSS in IE" at
> > http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx is worth a
> > visit for those who are interested in this development.
> >[/color]
> IE7 will be not be available for win2000, only on XP and later. Win2000
> is running on about half of the Windows systems out there. So even if IE7
> were fully standards compliant and everyone upgrades to it (ha ha ha ha!),
> in terms of web development it is irrelevant for years to come.[/color]

If I manufactured light bulbs, I would be more concerned that the
base of my bulb complied with the published standards for lamp
sockets than I would be about some lamp manufacturer who ignores
the standards. Similarly, I am more concerned that my Web pages
comply with the HTML and CSS specifications than I am about
browsers that ignore those specifications.

While I am a fan of Mozilla products, I avoid using any of the
Mozilla-specific CSS features that are not in the CSS
specifications.

--

David E. Ross
<URL:http://www.rossde.com/>

I use Mozilla as my Web browser because I want a browser that
complies with Web standards. See <URL:http://www.mozilla.org/>.

C A Upsdell > wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Note also that IE7 will run on XP SP2, but not XP or XP SP1.
>[/color]
Really? Wow! Talk about ignoring your customer base!

--
jmm dash list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

David Ross wrote:[color=blue]
> If I manufactured light bulbs, I would be more concerned that the
> base of my bulb complied with the published standards for lamp
> sockets than I would be about some lamp manufacturer who ignores
> the standards.[/color]

<argument type="standard">But what if the majority of installed lamps
used a non-standard socket?</argument>

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 15:32:42 -0700, Jim Moe
<jmm-list.AXSPAMGN@sohnen-moe.com> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Note also that IE7 will run on XP SP2, but not XP or XP SP1.
>>[/color]
> Really? Wow! Talk about ignoring your customer base![/color]

That's not ignoring them, it's slapping them. Not unreasonably so
either, IMHO.

(I note that Adobe Acrobat Reader is also fussy about Windows SP levels)

C A Upsdell wrote:[color=blue]
>
>Jim Moe wrote:
>[color=green]
>> IE7 will be not be available for win2000, only on XP and later.
>> Win2000 is running on about half of the Windows systems out there.[/color]
>
>Stats I follow indicate that Win2000 is running on about 12% of systems,
>not 50%, with XP running on about 65%.[/color]

I can't find any references to any recent statistics on this.
do you have a reference for your figures?

Here is the best I could find:

Businesses only:

"Windows 2000 has remained high, with the venerable operating
system still in use in 48 percent of business PCs during the
first quarter of 2005"

http://www.assetmetrix.com/pdf/Windo...larity2005.pdf
http://news.com.com/The+slow+road+to...3-5746046.html
http://www.itjungle.com/two/two062205-story01.html

Old data (2003):

"Google reported that 29 per cent of searches done in September
came from machines running Windows 98, as compared with 38 per
cent from Windows XP-based PCs and 20 percent from Windows 2000
machines."

http://bink.nu/Article696.bink
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/win...9118540,00.htm

Guy Macon wrote:[color=blue]
> C A Upsdell wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Jim Moe wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> IE7 will be not be available for win2000, only on XP and later.
>>>Win2000 is running on about half of the Windows systems out there.[/color]
>>
>>Stats I follow indicate that Win2000 is running on about 12% of systems,
>>not 50%, with XP running on about 65%.[/color]
>
> I can't find any references to any recent statistics on this.
> do you have a reference for your figures?[/color]

http://www.usgs.gov/server_stats/2005/www-06.html#os

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005/July/os.php

http://www.doctor-html.com/agent_stats/