How does Microsoft expect developers/designers to make stuff work for everyone?

[Nathan Sokalski]

Ever since I found out that they didn't give us a way to install both IE6
and IE7 on the same machine, I have been more frustrated and annoyed with
Microsoft than I ever have been with any company (and for someone who has
loved Microsoft as much as me, that takes something pretty bad!). I am a web
developer, and only have access to one computer, which makes it hard to test
for both IE6 and IE7. But even for people that have access to multiple
computers (at least one with IE6 and IE7), I doubt they would enjoy moving
between them every time they need to test a change in their code. Because my
boss is not currently requiring me to make the site function in all
browsers, I can survive as far as employment goes, but I don't think people
will want to optimize for IE7 if they are forced to switch at this point. I
feel this way because:

1. Many people (mostly the less technical people that don't want to learn
new software interfaces) won't be using IE7 yet anyway, so smaller
businesses and people creating personal sites will be less inclined to
change their code to make it work in IE7

2. People that develop personal websites and only have access to their home
computer will probably want to keep IE6 so that they can still view more
sites, as well as test on a browser that people as far back as Windows 98
(because believe it or not, some people haven't upgraded their OS) are
capable of using

I don't plan on upgrading to IE7 until I buy a new computer that comes with
Windows Vista or I find a way to have IE6 and IE7 on my machine at the same
time. Some people have told me to use VirtualPC 2004, but that is for
operating systems, and wouldn't help much when I want to see how a page
shows up in different browsers. If they could make something like that for
use with browsers, I would probably be happy. If Microsoft thinks everyone
is going to switch to IE7 because they want to, they are wrong. Many
universities have blocked the upgrade at the server level, so people in the
residence halls won't be getting it, and I don't think many other people do
it by choice anyway. Sorry, IE7, if you don't want to coexist, you're
waiting your turn with me!
--
Nathan Sokalski
nj********@hotmail.com
http://www.nathansokalski.com/

[Patrice]

Once your OS runs in Virtual PC, you can of course do whatever you do with
an OS such as installing IE7 or any other application you want. Try a
Virtual PC group if you had some kind of problem...

--
Patrice

"Nathan Sokalski" <nj********@hotmail.coma écrit dans le message de news:
O4*************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

Ever since I found out that they didn't give us a way to install both IE6
and IE7 on the same machine, I have been more frustrated and annoyed with
Microsoft than I ever have been with any company (and for someone who has
loved Microsoft as much as me, that takes something pretty bad!). I am a
web developer, and only have access to one computer, which makes it hard
to test for both IE6 and IE7. But even for people that have access to
multiple computers (at least one with IE6 and IE7), I doubt they would
enjoy moving between them every time they need to test a change in their
code. Because my boss is not currently requiring me to make the site
function in all browsers, I can survive as far as employment goes, but I
don't think people will want to optimize for IE7 if they are forced to
switch at this point. I feel this way because:

1. Many people (mostly the less technical people that don't want to learn
new software interfaces) won't be using IE7 yet anyway, so smaller
businesses and people creating personal sites will be less inclined to
change their code to make it work in IE7

2. People that develop personal websites and only have access to their
home computer will probably want to keep IE6 so that they can still view
more sites, as well as test on a browser that people as far back as
Windows 98 (because believe it or not, some people haven't upgraded their
OS) are capable of using

I don't plan on upgrading to IE7 until I buy a new computer that comes
with Windows Vista or I find a way to have IE6 and IE7 on my machine at
the same time. Some people have told me to use VirtualPC 2004, but that is
for operating systems, and wouldn't help much when I want to see how a
page shows up in different browsers. If they could make something like
that for use with browsers, I would probably be happy. If Microsoft thinks
everyone is going to switch to IE7 because they want to, they are wrong.
Many universities have blocked the upgrade at the server level, so people
in the residence halls won't be getting it, and I don't think many other
people do it by choice anyway. Sorry, IE7, if you don't want to coexist,
you're waiting your turn with me!
--
Nathan Sokalski
nj********@hotmail.com
http://www.nathansokalski.com/

[Mark Rae]

"Nathan Sokalski" <nj********@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:O4*************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

I am a web developer, and only have access to one computer, which makes it
hard to test for both IE6 and IE7.

That's what VirtualPC is for... :-)

[Aidy]

Ever since I found out that they didn't give us a way to install both IE6

and IE7 on the same machine, I have been more frustrated and annoyed with
Microsoft than I ever have been with any company (and for someone who has
loved Microsoft as much as me, that takes something pretty bad!). I am a
web developer, and only have access to one computer, which makes it hard
to test for both IE6 and IE7. But even for people that have access to
multiple computers (at least one with IE6 and IE7), I doubt they would
enjoy moving between them every time they need to test a change in their
code. Because my boss is not currently requiring me to make the site
function in all browsers, I can survive as far as employment goes, but I
don't think people will want to optimize for IE7 if they are forced to
switch at this point. I feel this way because:

<snip>

I know what you mean. We need to test IE6/IE7/Firefox 1/ Firefox 2/Mac.
You might want to try this;

http://tredosoft.com/IE7_standalone

I haven't tried it myself so not sure how well it works.

[AJR]

Not a developer so do not know if your statements are valid, However quote:
"...Some people have told me to use VirtualPC 2004, but that is for
operating systems,..." .
You can have whatever browser your heart desires installed on the Virtual PC
one of the main purpose of the virtual PC is to evaluate OSs and
applications.
"Nathan Sokalski" <nj********@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:O4*************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

Ever since I found out that they didn't give us a way to install both IE6
and IE7 on the same machine, I have been more frustrated and annoyed with
Microsoft than I ever have been with any company (and for someone who has
loved Microsoft as much as me, that takes something pretty bad!). I am a
web developer, and only have access to one computer, which makes it hard
to test for both IE6 and IE7. But even for people that have access to
multiple computers (at least one with IE6 and IE7), I doubt they would
enjoy moving between them every time they need to test a change in their
code. Because my boss is not currently requiring me to make the site
function in all browsers, I can survive as far as employment goes, but I
don't think people will want to optimize for IE7 if they are forced to
switch at this point. I feel this way because:

1. Many people (mostly the less technical people that don't want to learn
new software interfaces) won't be using IE7 yet anyway, so smaller
businesses and people creating personal sites will be less inclined to
change their code to make it work in IE7

2. People that develop personal websites and only have access to their
home computer will probably want to keep IE6 so that they can still view
more sites, as well as test on a browser that people as far back as
Windows 98 (because believe it or not, some people haven't upgraded their
OS) are capable of using

I don't plan on upgrading to IE7 until I buy a new computer that comes
with Windows Vista or I find a way to have IE6 and IE7 on my machine at
the same time. Some people have told me to use VirtualPC 2004, but that is
for operating systems, and wouldn't help much when I want to see how a
page shows up in different browsers. If they could make something like
that for use with browsers, I would probably be happy. If Microsoft thinks
everyone is going to switch to IE7 because they want to, they are wrong.
Many universities have blocked the upgrade at the server level, so people
in the residence halls won't be getting it, and I don't think many other
people do it by choice anyway. Sorry, IE7, if you don't want to coexist,
you're waiting your turn with me!
--
Nathan Sokalski
nj********@hotmail.com
http://www.nathansokalski.com/

[Corey B]

I understand why people are suggesting VirtualPC, but I have to whole
heartedly agree with the original poster. Come on Microsoft! This is
2007. It is absolutely ridiculous to not have a (simple) way to run
the two browsers side by side. Netscape Navigator had that ability
from day one!

I think that this is an example of what happens when one company has
complete market dominance. They don't care as much. In the
development cycle for IE7 supporting side by side installation was
probably very, very low on their priority list. When it came time to
cut features that would be one of the first to go.

They will have to see their browser market share really, really slip
before they will start scratching their heads and wondering why
developers are building sites for FireFox instead of IE.

As much as I like MS, this seems to be an example of what happens when
you are able to bundle your browser with the OS. Since the vast, vast
majority of people have Windows, they just end up using IE. And since
MS recommends automatic updating, then the vast, vast majority of
people just start using IE7 when it comes out. And since this
particular problem only impacts a relatively small number of people
they probably decided it wasn't worth the effort.

My two cents.
Corey

AJR wrote:

Not a developer so do not know if your statements are valid, However quote:
"...Some people have told me to use VirtualPC 2004, but that is for
operating systems,..." .
You can have whatever browser your heart desires installed on the Virtual PC
one of the main purpose of the virtual PC is to evaluate OSs and
applications.
"Nathan Sokalski" <nj********@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:O4*************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

Ever since I found out that they didn't give us a way to install both IE6
and IE7 on the same machine, I have been more frustrated and annoyed with
Microsoft than I ever have been with any company (and for someone who has
loved Microsoft as much as me, that takes something pretty bad!). I am a
web developer, and only have access to one computer, which makes it hard
to test for both IE6 and IE7. But even for people that have access to
multiple computers (at least one with IE6 and IE7), I doubt they would
enjoy moving between them every time they need to test a change in their
code. Because my boss is not currently requiring me to make the site
function in all browsers, I can survive as far as employment goes, but I
don't think people will want to optimize for IE7 if they are forced to
switch at this point. I feel this way because:

1. Many people (mostly the less technical people that don't want to learn
new software interfaces) won't be using IE7 yet anyway, so smaller
businesses and people creating personal sites will be less inclined to
change their code to make it work in IE7

2. People that develop personal websites and only have access to their
home computer will probably want to keep IE6 so that they can still view
more sites, as well as test on a browser that people as far back as
Windows 98 (because believe it or not, some people haven't upgraded their
OS) are capable of using

I don't plan on upgrading to IE7 until I buy a new computer that comes
with Windows Vista or I find a way to have IE6 and IE7 on my machine at
the same time. Some people have told me to use VirtualPC 2004, but that is
for operating systems, and wouldn't help much when I want to see how a
page shows up in different browsers. If they could make something like
that for use with browsers, I would probably be happy. If Microsoft thinks
everyone is going to switch to IE7 because they want to, they are wrong.
Many universities have blocked the upgrade at the server level, so people
in the residence halls won't be getting it, and I don't think many other
people do it by choice anyway. Sorry, IE7, if you don't want to coexist,
you're waiting your turn with me!
--
Nathan Sokalski
nj********@hotmail.com
http://www.nathansokalski.com/

[C A Upsdell]

Nathan Sokalski wrote:

Ever since I found out that they didn't give us a way to install both IE6
and IE7 on the same machine, I have been more frustrated and annoyed with
Microsoft than I ever have been with any company (and for someone who has
loved Microsoft as much as me, that takes something pretty bad!). I am a web
developer, and only have access to one computer, which makes it hard to test
for both IE6 and IE7 ...

Others have told you to use Virtual PC. Normally you have to get a
license for any O/S you install using Virtual PC, however, MS offers a
free pre-licensed copy of XP SP2 with IE6 that you can install using
Virtual PC, so you can upgrade to IE7, and install Virtual PC with this
virtual copy of XP SP2 for testing with IE6. I have done this, and it
works fine.

See
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/200...e-machine.aspx

[norm]

Nathan Sokalski wrote:

Ever since I found out that they didn't give us a way to install both IE6
and IE7 on the same machine, I have been more frustrated and annoyed with
Microsoft than I ever have been with any company (and for someone who has
loved Microsoft as much as me, that takes something pretty bad!). I am a web
developer, and only have access to one computer, which makes it hard to test
for both IE6 and IE7. But even for people that have access to multiple
computers (at least one with IE6 and IE7), I doubt they would enjoy moving
between them every time they need to test a change in their code. Because my
boss is not currently requiring me to make the site function in all
browsers, I can survive as far as employment goes, but I don't think people
will want to optimize for IE7 if they are forced to switch at this point. I
feel this way because:

1. Many people (mostly the less technical people that don't want to learn
new software interfaces) won't be using IE7 yet anyway, so smaller
businesses and people creating personal sites will be less inclined to
change their code to make it work in IE7

2. People that develop personal websites and only have access to their home
computer will probably want to keep IE6 so that they can still view more
sites, as well as test on a browser that people as far back as Windows 98
(because believe it or not, some people haven't upgraded their OS) are
capable of using

I don't plan on upgrading to IE7 until I buy a new computer that comes with
Windows Vista or I find a way to have IE6 and IE7 on my machine at the same
time. Some people have told me to use VirtualPC 2004, but that is for
operating systems, and wouldn't help much when I want to see how a page
shows up in different browsers. If they could make something like that for
use with browsers, I would probably be happy. If Microsoft thinks everyone
is going to switch to IE7 because they want to, they are wrong. Many
universities have blocked the upgrade at the server level, so people in the
residence halls won't be getting it, and I don't think many other people do
it by choice anyway. Sorry, IE7, if you don't want to coexist, you're
waiting your turn with me!

If you code to w3c recommendations and standards, it should not make any
difference to ie6 and ie7, or most any other browser being used.
http://validator.w3.org/
--
norm

[Corey B]

So it sounds like you are saying that if you code to the standards then
there is no need to test in the different browsers? Is that realistic?
I think we will always want to test in the different browsers. Even
with standards we could have slight variations in how those standards
are implemented - true?

Corey

norm wrote:

If you code to w3c recommendations and standards, it should not make any
difference to ie6 and ie7, or most any other browser being used.
http://validator.w3.org/
--
norm

[norm]

Corey B wrote:

So it sounds like you are saying that if you code to the standards then
there is no need to test in the different browsers? Is that realistic?
I think we will always want to test in the different browsers. Even
with standards we could have slight variations in how those standards
are implemented - true?

Corey

norm wrote:

>If you code to w3c recommendations and standards, it should not make any
difference to ie6 and ie7, or most any other browser being used.
http://validator.w3.org/
--
norm

If coding to standards, there probably should not be any "show stoppers"
when viewed with standards compliant browsers. There could be variances,
but nothing that should create an unpleasant viewing experience for the
user. If you are concerned about viewing differences between ie6 and
ie7, what about how things show up in mozilla, firefox, seamonkey,
netscape, opera, konqueror, safari. Are you also testing each of these
against your code? Recommendations and standards compliance offer the
greatest amount of certainty that you are not inadvertently excluding
someone from viewing your work in a satisfying manner.
--
norm

[Mark Rae]

"norm" <no***@afakeddomain.netwrote in message
news:ux**************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

If coding to standards, there probably should not be any "show stoppers"
when viewed with standards compliant browsers. There could be variances,
but nothing that should create an unpleasant viewing experience for the
user. If you are concerned about viewing differences between ie6 and ie7,
what about how things show up in mozilla, firefox, seamonkey, netscape,
opera, konqueror, safari. Are you also testing each of these against your
code? Recommendations and standards compliance offer the greatest amount
of certainty that you are not inadvertently excluding someone from viewing
your work in a satisfying manner.

That's certainly true! E.g. Safari simply doesn't understand CSS of any type
when applied to buttons... :-)

P.S. don't forget Camino...:-)

[C A Upsdell]

norm wrote:

Nathan Sokalski wrote:

If you code to w3c recommendations and standards, it should not make any
difference to ie6 and ie7, or most any other browser being used.
http://validator.w3.org/

It should not make a difference, but it does. IE6 and IE7 both have
bugs -- not always the same bugs -- and neither supports the standards
100%. Some tricks to make IE6 behave properly are not needed for IE7,
but can create problems in IE7. In addition there are some aspects of
page rendering that are not detailed in the standards (e.g. the position
of markers and sizes of LI indents), so that browsers are free to do
things differently: and they do.

I code to the standards, but I have sometimes had to resort to
conditional comments to make the various version of IE to do things in
an acceptable manner.

[Corey B]

norm wrote:

If coding to standards, there probably should not be any "show stoppers"
when viewed with standards compliant browsers. There could be variances,
but nothing that should create an unpleasant viewing experience for the
user. If you are concerned about viewing differences between ie6 and
ie7, what about how things show up in mozilla, firefox, seamonkey,
netscape, opera, konqueror, safari. Are you also testing each of these
against your code? Recommendations and standards compliance offer the
greatest amount of certainty that you are not inadvertently excluding
someone from viewing your work in a satisfying manner.
--
norm

Yes - you absolutely test using lots of different browsers. How many
browsers depends on the requirements and the client. Most clients are
happy if you can guarantee that the site will behave properly in about
90% - 95% of the population. So you can not worry about some of the
browsers with very, very small market share. Also, it depends on the
intended audience. If you know that your audience will be very, very
technical then there is a much greater chance that they will be using a
more obscure browser. So for most situations you will need to test
IE5, IE6, IE7, mozilla, firefox, safari, netscape and probably opera.
It's very simple to test all of those except the multiple versions of
IE. Then it becomes a royal pain in the butt. Either multiple
computers or VirtualPC. Either one is way more effort than should be
needed.

Corey

[ThunderMusic]

hi,
I must say I also code to the standards, however, I must do conditional
blocks based on the browser type and version when doing many things in
javascript because each browser implements javascript their own way. CSS has
some differences and we must sometimes use "hacks" to get things straight on
some browser, but it's not IMHO the major problem with "cross-browser"
compatibility... Actually, for me javascript is a much bigger problem in
that field.

And it's absolutely sure I won't test on every browser available, but I do
what I consider the "bare minimum" : IE6, IE7 (we have 2 computers to do
so), Netscape, Firefox and Opera. And I find some major differences between
just these 5 browsers, so I do even want to think about what I could find on
the others...

I also think it's a bad move from Microsoft, but since some IE components
are part of the OS, it was very predictable that it would be that way...

ThunderMusic

"C A Upsdell" <""cupsdell\"@no****@upsdell.com"wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

norm wrote:

>Nathan Sokalski wrote:

If you code to w3c recommendations and standards, it should not make any
difference to ie6 and ie7, or most any other browser being used.
http://validator.w3.org/

It should not make a difference, but it does. IE6 and IE7 both have
bugs -- not always the same bugs -- and neither supports the standards
100%. Some tricks to make IE6 behave properly are not needed for IE7, but
can create problems in IE7. In addition there are some aspects of page
rendering that are not detailed in the standards (e.g. the position of
markers and sizes of LI indents), so that browsers are free to do things
differently: and they do.

I code to the standards, but I have sometimes had to resort to conditional
comments to make the various version of IE to do things in an acceptable
manner.

[clintonG]

<snip />

<snip />

Architects and others in the construction industry know what this is like
because Autodesk controls the entire U.S. construction industry. Autodesk
sells crippleware CAD and its products are qualitatively trash yet they
continue to control the entire industry after imposing a proprietary file
format in the mid 1980s which has allowed the company to rape and pillage
the U.S. construction industry one the construction industry participants
became locked in.

In fact, the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) states in
recent studies that this type of crippleware is costing the U.S.
construction industry over $15 billion annually. Yes, they said $15 BILLION
ANNUALLY!!!

It would be interesting to learn how many tens of billions Microsoft
crippleware has cost America. All I know is $15 billion each and every year
and growing larger and larger is a hell of a price to pay.

Its also become a hell of a price to pay to Microsoft for "free" software
like a browser that has been used in a manner to destroy the web so as to
maintain artificial control of markets at the expense of the customer rather
than any actual competitor.

So the answer is really simple actually. Unlike architects and others who
have decades of proprietary file assets which continues to prevent any
reasonable choice in the matter of change Microsoft has only controlled the
"perception" of those using IE and has no proprietary files that prevent
anybody from choosing to use any other browser.

Microsoft did control the proprietary use of ActiveX controls which
dominated Intranets and enterprise development for some time but quite
frankly, the use of ActiveX is dead and web development need not rely on any
ActiveX controls for several years now.

So the answer is actually really quite simple. Abusers continue to abuse
until they are forced to stop abusing and the only power Microsoft has to
abuse anybody is simply a misplace perception.

All people need to do is use the power they really have to stop the abuser;
the freedom of choice. The power to control your own mind and change your
perception which leads to a change of behavior. It is your change of
behavior Microsoft fears most. Microsoft actually fears its own customers
more than they fear any competitor. I understand this phenomena and I hope I
am helping others to do so.

Choosing to put an 88x31 "button" image on a website stating the website
only functions with browsers that support W3C Standards and disallowing the
website to function for those using any version of IE is the way to free
ourselves of this scourge on humanity once and for all. At this point in
time it would be painless to do so as there are no more ActiveX controls and
no proprietary file assets that can cost so much to change. All that needs
to be changed in your mind!

Its just like quitting smoking cigarettes. Very difficult to do initially
but once you make up your mind and do it you look back and laugh at yourself
at how ridiculously easy it actually was once you stopped deceiving yourself
and realized the whole thing was in your mind which is the only means to
control behavior. That's all Microsoft has. Deception and your false
perceptions.

I'm finally now using another browser and while I will continue to develop
web applications using ASP.NET I will be practicing what I preach. The
billions of dollars this abusive corporation has unjustly imposed upon the
human race is simply too much to pay and I cannot in good concience continue
to be a part of it.

The joke they call IE7 proves to me Microsoft is not serious and remains
nothing more than a company of lying manipulating pimps who intend to
continue imposing great losses of time and money upon the human race while
spending unknown number of millions of dollars pampering a false perception
that they have changed. It is easy and correct to compare Microsoft to an
alcoholic or a herion addict. Same behavior model. Lies. Lies. Lies
Recidivism. Recidivism. Recidivism. Lies. Lies. Lies not different than the
woman whose husband beats her because "he loves her" and unless she
eventually finds the courage to change her mind she will die at his abusive
hand.

When people understand how insidious Microsoft's control of their minds has
become they must also find freedom to choose differnetly or die. The choice
is still ours to make and its our choice and our freedom to choose that is
important because it is that freedom to choose and that alone that Microsoft
has successfully controlled.

Since Microsoft's Internet Explorer 4 this company's browsers have became
analagous to the AIDs of the Internet and like a real dangerous and
insidious virus, the virus known as Internet Explorer must be eradicated
from the face of the earth or tens of millions of individuals and companies
alike will continue to waste their hard earned wealth throwing their pearls
after swine.

Like abused women married to men who love them Microsoft will continue to
come home and beat us all until we choose to leave once and for all or until
we are beaten to death.

<%= Clinton Gallagher
NET csgallagher AT metromilwaukee.com
URL http://clintongallagher.metromilwaukee.com/
MAP http://wikimapia.org/#y=43038073&x=-...8&z=17&l=0&m=h

[Mark Rae]

"Corey B" <co***********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@q2g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...

So for most situations you will need to test IE5, IE6, IE7, mozilla,
firefox, safari, netscape and probably opera.

IE5 is all but gone now...

IE7, IE6, FireFox and Safari account for over 95% of worldwide usage.

WinXP, 2000 & 98 account for 92% of worldwide usage - Mac 4%

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/

[PA Bear]

Did you ever hear of partitions and installing more than one OS...?

BTW there is a way to have IE6 and IE7 installed at the same time, but this
is not supported.
--
~PA Bear

Nathan Sokalski wrote:

Ever since I found out that they didn't give us a way to install both IE6
and IE7 on the same machine, I have been more frustrated and annoyed with
Microsoft than I ever have been with any company (and for someone who has
loved Microsoft as much as me, that takes something pretty bad!). I am a
web
developer, and only have access to one computer, which makes it hard to
test
for both IE6 and IE7...

[Corey B]

PA Bear wrote:

Did you ever hear of partitions and installing more than one OS...?

BTW there is a way to have IE6 and IE7 installed at the same time, but this
is not supported.
--
~PA Bear

Yeah - I know that's a solution. But doesn't it seem absolutely
ridiculous that you must partition your drive and install a completely
separate *operating system* just to get a different version of a web
browser? We should expect more from Microsoft instead of being happy
to find a work around.

Corey

[Nathan Sokalski]

Yes, I have heard of all those things, but they do not allow you to have a
window for each browser version open side by side. My basic complaint is
that when testing, I don't want to be logging out and back in under a
different login to test it in a different browser. Not only would this be
very time consuming, but if I have to close my development software (in my
case, Visual Studio .NET 2005) to test, I cannot use the undo feature of
Visual Studio .NET 2005. Yes, I know how to install a second copy of Windows
XP SP2 using Virtual PC, but if someone's going to have software like Visual
Studio .NET open, do you really want to use up all the extra RAM required to
run a second copy of the OS?
--
Nathan Sokalski
nj********@hotmail.com
http://www.nathansokalski.com/

"PA Bear" <PA*******@gmail.comwrote in message
news:uM*************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

Did you ever hear of partitions and installing more than one OS...?

BTW there is a way to have IE6 and IE7 installed at the same time, but
this is not supported.
--
~PA Bear

Nathan Sokalski wrote:

>Ever since I found out that they didn't give us a way to install both IE6
and IE7 on the same machine, I have been more frustrated and annoyed with
Microsoft than I ever have been with any company (and for someone who has
loved Microsoft as much as me, that takes something pretty bad!). I am a
web
developer, and only have access to one computer, which makes it hard to
test
for both IE6 and IE7...

[Mark Rae]

"Nathan Sokalski" <nj********@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:ud**************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

Yes, I know how to install a second copy of Windows XP SP2 using Virtual
PC,

Good, because that's the solution here...

but if someone's going to have software like Visual Studio .NET open, do
you really want to use up all the extra RAM required to run a second copy
of the OS?

So get some more RAM, then...!

[Kevin Spencer]

Yes, in fact, FireFox accounts for all Mozilla type browsers, and IE7 is
almost exactly as conformant as FireFox, but I would test in both, or at
least understand the differences. IE6 is problematic, especially with
regards to CSS and some JavaScript. Of the current popular browsers, it is
the least standards-compliant, but really doesn't run into problems most of
the time. Safari is, of course, hte major Apple browser, and is almost
entirely standards-compliant.

So, using those 4 browsers, and not worrying too much about IE6 (IE7 is
freely available now), you should not need to test in any other browsers.
And you can probably safely skip Safari if you don't have a Mac, as long as
you stay inside the standards.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Bit Player
http://unclechutney.blogspot.com

In case of Minimalism, break Philip Glass.

"Mark Rae" <ma**@markNOSPAMrae.comwrote in message
news:Oe**************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

"Corey B" <co***********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@q2g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...

>So for most situations you will need to test IE5, IE6, IE7, mozilla,
firefox, safari, netscape and probably opera.

IE5 is all but gone now...

IE7, IE6, FireFox and Safari account for over 95% of worldwide usage.

WinXP, 2000 & 98 account for 92% of worldwide usage - Mac 4%

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/

[C A Upsdell]

Leythos wrote:

With the above in mind, you need to test your app with the following:

Windows 2000 / IE6
Windows 2000 / IE7
Windows 2000 / AOL
Windows 2000 / FireFox 2

Windows XP / IE6
Windows XP / IE7
Windows XP / AOL
Windows XP / FireFox 2

Why do you feel it is necessary to test the identical browser on
multiple O/S's, e.g. IE6 on Win 2000 and Win XP, and Firefox 2 on Win
2000 and Win XP?

Why do you feel it is necessary to test AOL, given that it just uses IE?

[Mark Rae]

"C A Upsdell" <""cupsdell\"@no****@upsdell.com"wrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

Why do you feel it is necessary to test the identical browser on multiple
O/S's, e.g. IE6 on Win 2000 and Win XP, and Firefox 2 on Win 2000 and Win
XP?

I was wondering that...

Why do you feel it is necessary to test AOL, given that it just uses IE?

I was wondering that too... :-)

[Nathan Sokalski]

My concern is not what customers will pay for, I am just a recently
graduated student who works from home and my boss doesn't care whether I
test it in anything other than IE6. But I want to become familiar with IE7
for personal reasons as well as experience for the future. And as I said in
previous postings, it's not that I don't have a way to test on both if I set
it up (I could use Virtual PC), but I want a way to have an IE6 and IE7
window open next to each other. I don't want to use Virtual PC for testing
because Visual Studio .NET 2005, which I use for developing, takes enough
RAM as it is, so having a second copy of the operating system running would
be a lot, along with the fact that I don't think that we should have to
install a second copy of the OS just to test a browser.
--
Nathan Sokalski
nj********@hotmail.com
http://www.nathansokalski.com/

"Leythos" <vo**@nowhere.lanwrote in message
news:MP************************@adfree.usenet.com. ..

In article <11**********************@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
co***********@gmail.com says...

>So it sounds like you are saying that if you code to the standards then
there is no need to test in the different browsers? Is that realistic?
I think we will always want to test in the different browsers. Even
with standards we could have slight variations in how those standards
are implemented - true?

In general there are two targets - the IE group and the Everyone else
group. There is no cost effective means to make all web apps work with
all browsers, customers just wont pay for that.

With the above in mind, you need to test your app with the following:

Windows 2000 / IE6
Windows 2000 / IE7
Windows 2000 / AOL
Windows 2000 / FireFox 2

Windows XP / IE6
Windows XP / IE7
Windows XP / AOL
Windows XP / FireFox 2

MAC OS/x (if you care)

Nix OS / FireFox (Fedora, Mandrake, Ubuntu...)

If you do the above, you will cover 99% of the people that visit a
public website.

If your customer base is smaller, then reduce the list.

We have dedicated machines setup to test our web apps against the above,
just so that we can be sure they work. Each machine has a ghost image
that is restored before each test so that we can be sure that noone has
installed any controls that we don't expect users to not have.
--

sp*********@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

[Nathan Sokalski]

I'm just graduated less than a month ago, when I win the lottery I will! But
even so, we shouldn't have to install a second OS just to test a browser...
--
Nathan Sokalski
nj********@hotmail.com
http://www.nathansokalski.com/

"Mark Rae" <ma**@markNOSPAMrae.comwrote in message
news:uu**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

"Nathan Sokalski" <nj********@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:ud**************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>Yes, I know how to install a second copy of Windows XP SP2 using Virtual
PC,

Good, because that's the solution here...

>but if someone's going to have software like Visual Studio .NET open, do
you really want to use up all the extra RAM required to run a second copy
of the OS?

So get some more RAM, then...!

[Mark Rae]

"Nathan Sokalski" <nj********@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:OI**************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

My concern is not what customers will pay for, I am just a recently
graduated student who works from home and my boss doesn't care whether I
test it in anything other than IE6. But I want to become familiar with IE7
for personal reasons as well as experience for the future. And as I said
in previous postings, it's not that I don't have a way to test on both if
I set it up (I could use Virtual PC), but I want a way to have an IE6 and
IE7 window open next to each other. I don't want to use Virtual PC for
testing because Visual Studio .NET 2005, which I use for developing, takes
enough RAM as it is, so having a second copy of the operating system
running would be a lot, along with the fact that I don't think that we
should have to install a second copy of the OS just to test a browser.

You can't have your cake and eat it, as the saying goes...

E.g. if all you can afford is a cheap Ford, there's really very little point
in whinging about the fact that you can't afford a Ferrari, and you can
hardly blame the people who make the roads for the fact that others get
there quicker than you do...

I appreciate the fact that you aren't a millionaire, but a computer capable
of running the apps that you want really isn't *that* expensive these days,
especially in the States... You could find the money if you *really* wanted
to...

The fact that *you* don't think that you should have to install a second
copy of the OS just to test a browser is completely irrelevant - that fact
is, in this particular case, you do...

[Mark Rae]

"Nathan Sokalski" <nj********@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:ed*************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

But even so, we shouldn't have to install a second OS just to test a
browser...

Tough - you do...

Put up or shut up...

[Corey B]

Mark Rae wrote:

You can't have your cake and eat it, as the saying goes...

E.g. if all you can afford is a cheap Ford, there's really very little point
in whinging about the fact that you can't afford a Ferrari, and you can
hardly blame the people who make the roads for the fact that others get
there quicker than you do...

I appreciate the fact that you aren't a millionaire, but a computer capable
of running the apps that you want really isn't *that* expensive these days,
especially in the States... You could find the money if you *really* wanted
to...

The fact that *you* don't think that you should have to install a second
copy of the OS just to test a browser is completely irrelevant - that fact
is, in this particular case, you do...

Wow. To me, that reply is a perfect example of "Microsoft
brainwashing". I don't want to be a MS basher because I really like a
lot of the stuff they put out. However, we all seem to be way too
willing to swallow whatever MS says. If they say we have to install a
second copy of the OS just to test a browser - are we just supposed to
say "oh well, guess I have to". No. We complain about it and maybe
they will fix it. Or if not, we move to a different browser. Just
because they can produce a workaround doesn't mean we have to accept
it.

To use the car analogy - what if Ford made a car and the only way you
could work on the engine was to completely remove it and install it in
a second car? The general public could care less - but the mechanics
would be up in arms. And what if the answer from Ford was "tough
bananas - we provided you a workaround"? They would never get away
with that. The reason that MS does is because they have a stranglehold
on the browser market because of their desktop OS dominance.

The difficulty in this situation is that we as developers can not
ignore IE. We can encourage users to move to a different browser but
it would take quite an effort to actually supplant IE as the dominant
browser.

Corey

[Mark Rae]

"Corey B" <co***********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@m58g2000cwm.googlegro ups.com...

Wow. To me, that reply is a perfect example of "Microsoft
brainwashing". I don't want to be a MS basher because I really like a
lot of the stuff they put out. However, we all seem to be way too
willing to swallow whatever MS says. If they say we have to install a
second copy of the OS just to test a browser - are we just supposed to
say "oh well, guess I have to". No. We complain about it and maybe
they will fix it. Or if not, we move to a different browser. Just
because they can produce a workaround doesn't mean we have to accept
it.

LOL! I really think you're in the wrong business or, at least, haven't had
much exposure to business software.

Not being able to run different versions of the same application on the same
operating system really is nothing new, especially if that operating system
is Windows.

Your "solution" of moving to a different browser won't get you very far
either - it's pretty much the same situation for FireFox 1.5.x and 2.0.x. Of
course, people have found ways of almost getting round this:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourc...0+side+by+side
but they amount to little more than deinstalling one version and
reinstalling the other.

Going back to the car analogy, would you have your car repaired by someone
who couldn't afford a decent set of tools to do the job properly...?

[Nathan Sokalski]

I would like to point out that this is NOT pretty much the same situation as
FireFox 1.5 and 2.0. The difference is that when FireFox moved from 1.5 to
2.0, it made fixes and improvements. When Internet Explorer moved from 6.0
to 7.0, it made major changes, not just small changes such as security fixes
and minor bugs. IE7 completely changed the way it renders pages, because it
now follows the W3C standards so much more closely. As happy as I am that
they are now following more standards, it doesn't change the fact that
people will still be using IE6 for a while, so we have to test in both. With
version changes such as when IE went from 5.5 to 6.0, or when FireFox went
from 1.5 to 2.0, if the rendering changed at all it was probably adding
support for something (such as CSS) or correcting a bug. When adding support
for something, it won't cause existing pages to look different. When
correcting a bug, it probably means your page didn't work correctly
beforehand anyway. If the "bug" is referring to making a feature follow the
standards correctly, they have never changed this many at the same time, and
if I remember correctly, we were able to run IE 5.5 and 6.0 side by side
anyway.

I would also like to comment on the following:

Going back to the car analogy, would you have your car repaired by someone
who couldn't afford a decent set of tools to do the job properly...?

No, I wouldn't. However, Microsoft is supposed to want people to learn and
like their software. Regardless of what universities and schools try to say,
most learning is done through experience. I don't think anyone's employer is
going to let them spend the weekend in the office practicing coding, and the
people who really need to learn this stuff are the college students and
recent graduates majoring in it. I am a graduate from Fall 2006, and work
from home. If they want this generation of developers and designers to be
good with IE7, they better give us a way to practice without forcing us to
get rid of IE6! If I could use IE7 without needing to worry about how sites
I visit for personal reasons would look, I would have gotten it the day it
was released, but they decided to put us in this situation instead.
--
Nathan Sokalski
nj********@hotmail.com
http://www.nathansokalski.com/

"Mark Rae" <ma**@markNOSPAMrae.comwrote in message
news:OL****************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

"Corey B" <co***********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@m58g2000cwm.googlegro ups.com...

>Wow. To me, that reply is a perfect example of "Microsoft
brainwashing". I don't want to be a MS basher because I really like a
lot of the stuff they put out. However, we all seem to be way too
willing to swallow whatever MS says. If they say we have to install a
second copy of the OS just to test a browser - are we just supposed to
say "oh well, guess I have to". No. We complain about it and maybe
they will fix it. Or if not, we move to a different browser. Just
because they can produce a workaround doesn't mean we have to accept
it.

LOL! I really think you're in the wrong business or, at least, haven't had
much exposure to business software.

Not being able to run different versions of the same application on the
same operating system really is nothing new, especially if that operating
system is Windows.

Your "solution" of moving to a different browser won't get you very far
either - it's pretty much the same situation for FireFox 1.5.x and 2.0.x.
Of course, people have found ways of almost getting round this:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourc...0+side+by+side
but they amount to little more than deinstalling one version and
reinstalling the other.

Going back to the car analogy, would you have your car repaired by someone
who couldn't afford a decent set of tools to do the job properly...?

[Mark Rae]

"Nathan Sokalski" <nj********@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:ut**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

IE7 completely changed the way it renders pages, because it now follows
the W3C standards so much more closely.

That's right - IE7 is a huge leap forward and very, very different - so much
so, that it can't co-exist with any previous version of IE... Why can you
not simply accept that...?

As happy as I am that they are now following more standards, it doesn't
change the fact that people will still be using IE6 for a while, so we
have to test in both.

Dear me - you really do want it both ways, don't you...! On the one hand,
you're happy that Microsoft have taken on board the very real criticism of
previous verions of IE - namely, that they are not standards compliant - and
produced a new version which is much, much better (though by no means
perfect), yet you're whinging because they've made so many modifications and
improvements that it is now incompatible with IE6 to the extent that both
can't be installed on the same instance of Windows... Maybe they shouldn't
have bothered...? Or maybe just done a couple of bug fixes - you know, just
for your benefit...?

However, Microsoft is supposed to want people to learn and like their
software.

No doubt about that.

Regardless of what universities and schools try to say, most learning is
done through experience.

I completely agree with that.

I don't think anyone's employer is going to let them spend the weekend in
the office practicing coding,

But what does that have to do with you...? You work from home, right? Same
as me.

and the people who really need to learn this stuff are the college
students and recent graduates majoring in it.

Utter rubbish! The people who really need to learn this stuff are
developers; whether they are recent graduates or seasoned developers with
upwards of 20 years programming experience behind them is totally
irrelevent. I'm really struggling to grasp what point you're trying to make
here...

I am a graduate from Fall 2006, and work from home.

Well there you go - no need to fret about not being allowed into the office
at weekends...:-)

If they want this generation of developers and designers to be good with
IE7, they better give us a way to practice without forcing us to get rid
of IE6!

They have - it's called Virtual PC. You can download it from their website -
it's in your price range... You can even download a free image of
WinXP+SP2+IE6 precisely so that developers in your situation can continue to
test on that platform:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en

But even that isn't enough for you! What more do you want...?!!!

Neither the world in general nor Microsoft in particular owes you a living,
you know - the quicker you realise that, the sooner you'll get on...

[Gary Smith]

In microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser C A Upsdell <""cupsdell\"@no****@upsdell.com"wrote:

Leythos wrote:

With the above in mind, you need to test your app with the following:

Windows 2000 / IE6
Windows 2000 / IE7
Windows 2000 / AOL
Windows 2000 / FireFox 2

Windows XP / IE6
Windows XP / IE7
Windows XP / AOL
Windows XP / FireFox 2

Why do you feel it is necessary to test the identical browser on
multiple O/S's, e.g. IE6 on Win 2000 and Win XP, and Firefox 2 on Win
2000 and Win XP?

IE6 on Win 2000 and IE6 on Win XP are two different programs with the same
name. They behave differently in some respects, and need to tested
separately. So far as I know, IE7 can't be installed in Win 2000.
Firefox should be independent of the Windows version, since unlike IE, it
doesn't rely heavily on operating system components.

--
Gary L. Smith
Columbus, Ohio

[Mark Rae]

"Gary Smith" <bi*******@example.comwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

IE6 on Win 2000 and IE6 on Win XP are two different programs with the same
name.

??? Are you sure about that...?

So far as I know, IE7 can't be installed in Win 2000.

Not easily - depending on how brave you're feeling, ahem, the Registry can
be hacked etc... :-)

[Paul Johnson]

Nathan Sokalski wrote:

Ever since I found out that they didn't give us a way to install both IE6
and IE7 on the same machine, I have been more frustrated and annoyed with
Microsoft than I ever have been with any company (and for someone who has
loved Microsoft as much as me, that takes something pretty bad!). I am a
web developer, and only have access to one computer, which makes it hard
to test for both IE6 and IE7.

I have a hard time believing you're really a web developer given you're
testing against IE instead of a standards compliant browser and
http://validator.w3.org/. Using IE as your testbed is going to result in
webpages that only look good in IE. That shows ignorance towards the
standards that are the bread and butter of your trade.

Now if you develop with a standard browser and use the standard validator
the W3 provides, your pages will look good in all browsers, with the
occasional IE glitch if you're unlucky. This would be a better strategy
all around: The official W3 standards are there to ensure everything works
in all browsers. If you can write a webpage that passes the validator but
fails in the browser, you've found a browser bug; don't break your code to
work around someone else's bug.

[Paul Johnson]

Leythos wrote:

In article <11**********************@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
co***********@gmail.com says...

>So it sounds like you are saying that if you code to the standards then
there is no need to test in the different browsers? Is that realistic?
I think we will always want to test in the different browsers. Even
with standards we could have slight variations in how those standards
are implemented - true?

In general there are two targets - the IE group and the Everyone else
group. There is no cost effective means to make all web apps work with
all browsers, customers just wont pay for that.

With the above in mind, you need to test your app with the following:

Windows 2000 / IE6
Windows 2000 / IE7
Windows 2000 / AOL
Windows 2000 / FireFox 2

Windows XP / IE6
Windows XP / IE7
Windows XP / AOL
Windows XP / FireFox 2

MAC OS/x (if you care)

Nix OS / FireFox (Fedora, Mandrake, Ubuntu...)

If you do the above, you will cover 99% of the people that visit a
public website.

A year and a half's webstats on my server indicate that that cross section
would cover more like 87-93% of users out there depending on the month.
BTW, you'll get the exact same number of users if you eliminate some of the
redundant tests: Operating system choice (especially something as trivial
as NT5.0 versus NT5.1) doesn't affect browser rendering ability (font
availability would, but the same fonts ship with NT5 and NT5.1, so even
that's moot), and MacOS qualifies as a unix. AOL is rebadged, outdated
Mozilla. I would try this list to save time with the best results...

OS / Rendering Engine

WinXP / Gecko
Unix / Gecko
Unix / KHTML
WinXP / IE6 *

KHTML is used in Konqueror and Safari, both are popular unix browsers.
Gecko is used in Mozilla and it's relatives.

(* Optional. It's designed to deliberately break the standards, a holdover
of the IE/Netscape battle of 12 years ago and just needs to die already)

[Paul Johnson]

Please do not quote backwards as this reduces readability.
http://wiki.ursine.ca/Best_Online_Quoting_Practices

Corey B wrote:

So it sounds like you are saying that if you code to the standards then
there is no need to test in the different browsers? Is that realistic?

I would say so. Code to the standard, not to someone else's bugs. If some
particular browser can't hack standard code, the bug is with the browser,
not with your code. Unless you're coding something specific for some
closed userbase that you know will all be using the same environment, you
can't guarantee that they'll be visiting your site using the browsers
you've tested against.

Never break your project's code to fix a completely unrelated project's
problems: You're simply shifting the blame from the actual problem to the
users who didn't experience that problem to start with. Let unrelated
project fix it's own code.

I think we will always want to test in the different browsers. Even
with standards we could have slight variations in how those standards
are implemented - true?

True, but usually not major enough to change the content significantly,
especially if you're being smart and using ratios instead of hard values.
Now on this tangent, percentages are your friend, pixels are your enemy
when it comes to sizes; coding for a particular resolution is inheirently
flawed: You don't know what hardware, OS or window manager your visitors
are using, window elements and user preferences will often make windows
much smaller on the user-end than you think. Therefor, the only sane width
you can gaurantee is *NOT* 1024, it's not even 800. Forget 480. Try 0.
Webpages should be able to compress into a razor thin strip of a window and
still be reasonably usable, yet still be able to spread out and fill a
potentially infinitely wide window. Not everybody browses from a graphical
environment, some people browse from 15-character-wide phone screens, and
sooner or later someone's going to have a massively beautiful Apple Cinema
display with insanely small dot pitch the size of a coffee table...and want
to read a maximized web browser all the way across all five feet of it
without four feet of whitespace to the right of the content. So far, the
only two well-known websites I can think of that get the size assumption
right are Wikipedia and Slashdot.

Point of this tangent is if you even think you need a "best viewed at
X00xY00 resolution" disclaimer, you're trying to think you know better than
the user for their own needs: Don't do that!

[Nathan Sokalski]

First of all, IE6 is what most of our users use, and it is the only one that
my boss is requiring me to make it work in. Second of all, you do know the
difference between designer and developer, right? http://validator.w3.org/
tells you if it is valid code, but it doesn't tell you how to do something
if it doesn't do it already, which is usually my problem. If the error is
server-side, or the page gets data passed to it from another page, than it
can't be tested with the Validator. Also, I do make every attempt I can to
follow the standards, but I am one person, graduated for less than a month,
using a technology they didn't even offer to teach where I went to college,
at least give me a break on what browser I test in! And with ASP.NET, which
is what I develop in, much of the CSS is determined by the controls, so I
sometimes don't even know the generated HTML & CSS until I test, sometimes
it takes extra code to UNDO generated code that doesn't follow standards.
But back to your original message, if the browser DOES have a bug, I have to
work around it if I want my pages to look the way I want. The question is
how you work around it. The best way is to detect the browser and generate
slightly different code based on that (which is what most of the built-in
ASP.NET controls do, but I don't believe they are updated for IE7). But
until I have enough time (and resources!) to test in all the browsers, I
think it's best to test in the one with the largest usage.
--
Nathan Sokalski
nj********@hotmail.com
http://www.nathansokalski.com/

"Paul Johnson" <ba***@ursine.cawrote in message
news:2m************@ursa-major.ursine.ca...

Nathan Sokalski wrote:

>Ever since I found out that they didn't give us a way to install both IE6
and IE7 on the same machine, I have been more frustrated and annoyed with
Microsoft than I ever have been with any company (and for someone who has
loved Microsoft as much as me, that takes something pretty bad!). I am a
web developer, and only have access to one computer, which makes it hard
to test for both IE6 and IE7.

I have a hard time believing you're really a web developer given you're
testing against IE instead of a standards compliant browser and
http://validator.w3.org/. Using IE as your testbed is going to result in
webpages that only look good in IE. That shows ignorance towards the
standards that are the bread and butter of your trade.

Now if you develop with a standard browser and use the standard validator
the W3 provides, your pages will look good in all browsers, with the
occasional IE glitch if you're unlucky. This would be a better strategy
all around: The official W3 standards are there to ensure everything
works
in all browsers. If you can write a webpage that passes the validator but
fails in the browser, you've found a browser bug; don't break your code to
work around someone else's bug.

[Corey B]

Paul Johnson wrote:

I would say so. Code to the standard, not to someone else's bugs. If some
particular browser can't hack standard code, the bug is with the browser,
not with your code. Unless you're coding something specific for some
closed userbase that you know will all be using the same environment, you
can't guarantee that they'll be visiting your site using the browsers
you've tested against.

Never break your project's code to fix a completely unrelated project's
problems: You're simply shifting the blame from the actual problem to the
users who didn't experience that problem to start with. Let unrelated
project fix it's own code.

That sounds great in theory, however it's not very good in practice.
If I am a company, then my website is a reflection of that company.
The experience that people have on my website has a direct impact on
how they feel about my company and whether they will buy my products or
not. The vast majority of "regular" web users out there (non
technical) use Internet Explorer 6. I better make sure that my web
site looks nice on IE6 and runs without errors - regardless of
standards. If my web site breaks or looks really crappy, Joe Average
User will not think to himself "gee, Microsoft makes a crappy, non
standard browser", he will think "pretty amateur website, maybe an
amateur company". Because of its huge market share, we are stuck with
making sure our sites work well and look nice in whatever versions of
IE are out there.

Corey

[Corey B]

Mark Rae wrote:

LOL! I really think you're in the wrong business or, at least, haven't had
much exposure to business software.

I've been writing software for almost 15 years.

Not being able to run different versions of the same application on the same
operating system really is nothing new, especially if that operating system
is Windows.

I didn't say that it was something new. It's just something that we
don't question. However there is a difference between browsers and
other applications. Let's compare it to Microsoft Word. When a new
version of Word comes out, it is up to Microsoft to make sure that the
new version of Word can open up old Word documents. And they build in
that compatibility with varying degrees of success and they release
patches and so on. But as a creator of Word documents I don't need to
be able to run both versions of Word to see how my document looks. The
new version of Word will automatically upgrade the old Word document.

It's different for the web. It's up to me, the developer to make sure
that everything looks ok on the new browser. The new browser will not
detect that the page was written for an "older" version of IE and
upgrade it or anything. So there is a genuine need to run them side by
side.

Going back to the car analogy, would you have your car repaired by someone
who couldn't afford a decent set of tools to do the job properly...?

It's not really a matter of cost, it's more a matter of hassle. It's a
hassle for developers to have to install multiple operating systems on
a PC just to test browsers. What a waste of hard drive space and
system resources.

My point is simply that because Microsoft dominates the market, they
are a bit lazy when it comes to some of these issues. In my opinion,
this is just one small example of why it was a really, really bad idea
to tie Internet Explorer to the operating system.

Flame away!

Corey

[Mark Rae]

"Corey B" <co***********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@38g2000cwa.googlegrou ps.com...

However there is a difference between browsers and other applications.

That's true.

Let's compare it to Microsoft Word.

Er, no... To quote you directly: "there is a difference between browsers and
other applications", so let's *not* compare it to Word, as you have already
correctly highlighted the difference between and web browsers and other
applications. Try comparing it to FireFox instead. Tell me how you can have
v1.5.x and v2.0.x installed on the same version of Windows and have them
both run reliably... Hint: you can't... You can try any number of "hacks"
with the Registry etc - none of them works properly...

It's different for the web. It's up to me, the developer to make sure
that everything looks ok on the new browser. The new browser will not
detect that the page was written for an "older" version of IE and
upgrade it or anything. So there is a genuine need to run them side by
side.

I couldn't agree more! Microsoft would also agree with you:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en

It's not really a matter of cost, it's more a matter of hassle. It's a
hassle for developers to have to install multiple operating systems on
a PC just to test browsers. What a waste of hard drive space and
system resources.

Hassle? How long do you *honestly* think it would take you to download and
install Virtual PC, and then click the above link to download the guest
which Microsoft have made freely available for precisely this purpose....?
As for wasting hard drive space and system resources, is your development PC
*really* so underpowered...? If so, I'd have to question your seriousness in
all of this...

My point is simply that because Microsoft dominates the market, they
are a bit lazy when it comes to some of these issues. In my opinion,
this is just one small example of why it was a really, really bad idea
to tie Internet Explorer to the operating system.

Try running two different versions of FireFox on the same installation of
Windows - you can't, for precisely the same reasons as you can't run IE6 and
IE7...

[Corey B]

Mark Rae wrote:

I couldn't agree more! Microsoft would also agree with you:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en

That is "side by side"? I think not. Unless I am completely
misunderstanding what a Virtual PC image is. (which is entirely
possible) Can I have two windows right next to each other - one with
IE7 and one with IE6? Or would I have to reboot and choose which
version of Windows to load?

Corey

[Mark Rae]

"Corey B" <co***********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@s34g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

Mark Rae wrote:

>I couldn't agree more! Microsoft would also agree with you:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en

That is "side by side"? I think not.

I think so.

Unless I am completely misunderstanding what a Virtual PC image is.

You are - completely.

Can I have two windows right next to each other - one with IE7 and one
with IE6?

Yes - that's the whole point!!!

Or would I have to reboot and choose which version of Windows to load?

No. I suggest you inform yourself.

[Corey B]

Mark Rae wrote:

"Corey B" <co***********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@s34g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

Mark Rae wrote:

I couldn't agree more! Microsoft would also agree with you:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en

That is "side by side"? I think not.

I think so.

Unless I am completely misunderstanding what a Virtual PC image is.

You are - completely.

Can I have two windows right next to each other - one with IE7 and one
with IE6?

Yes - that's the whole point!!!

Or would I have to reboot and choose which version of Windows to load?

No. I suggest you inform yourself.

You're correct. I should! :) I thought that a Virtual PC image meant
that I would have to partition my hard drive and install a second
operating system and then boot in to one or the other.

So can this VirtualPC image of IE6 access web sites that live on the
same computer? I got the impression before that this VPC image was
kind of like an isolated island and that it had no access to any
resources on the computer or something.

Thanks for setting me straight.

Corey

[Laurent Bugnion [MVP]]

Hi,

Corey B wrote:

You're correct. I should! :) I thought that a Virtual PC image meant
that I would have to partition my hard drive and install a second
operating system and then boot in to one or the other.

So can this VirtualPC image of IE6 access web sites that live on the
same computer? I got the impression before that this VPC image was
kind of like an isolated island and that it had no access to any
resources on the computer or something.

Thanks for setting me straight.

Corey

Virtual PC (and other similar applications) map physical resources
(ports, connections, disks, etc...) to the virtual environment, so most
things you can do with a "real" PC, you can do with a virtual PC too.
The only downside of a virtual PC I can think of is that you'll need a
lot of memory (hard disk, RAM...) to have as many environments as one
usually needs to test when developing web applications.

Greetings,
Laurent
--
Laurent Bugnion [MVP ASP.NET]
Software engineering: http://www.galasoft-LB.ch
PhotoAlbum: http://www.galasoft-LB.ch/pictures
Support children in Calcutta: http://www.calcutta-espoir.ch

[Mark Rae]

"Corey B" <co***********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@v45g2000cwv.googlegr oups.com...

You're correct. I should! :) I thought that a Virtual PC image meant
that I would have to partition my hard drive and install a second
operating system and then boot in to one or the other.

Really...?

So can this VirtualPC image of IE6 access web sites that live on the
same computer?

Yes.

I got the impression before that this VPC image was
kind of like an isolated island and that it had no access to any
resources on the computer or something.

I can't imagine how you could have t hought that, but never mind... E.g. I
can fire up a web application in VS.NET 2005, set a breakpoint, and then
point Netscape under Linux at it - and can debug it totally live.

Here's an image from my development PC's deskop:
http://www.markrae.com/virtualpc.jpg

The window on the top left is IE7 running on WinXP.

The browser on the top right is IE6 runnong on WinXP - in a virtual machine.

The window on the bottom left is Virtual PC itself, showing some other
virtual machines that I have built:

Beta - is for evaluating beta software - currently has Microsoft Expression
installed.

Ubuntu 6.10 - has FireFox, Epiphany, Konqueror, Netscape, Mozilla and Opera
installed for testing websites on Linux browsers.

Vista - obvious.

VSDec2006CTP - the January CTP version of Orcas i.e. the next version of
Visual Studio - every serious developer should be looking at that.

XBrowser - has IE6, FireFox, Netscape, Opera and Mozilla running under
Windows XP

There are two limitations of VirtualPC currently: it doesn't support 64-bit
guests, and it doesn't support MacOX - I have a Mac Mini for that...

Other than that, it's one of the most useful pieces of software for
developers.

[Mark Rae]

"Laurent Bugnion [MVP]" <ga*********@bluewin.chwrote in message
news:Of**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

Virtual PC (and other similar applications) map physical resources (ports,
connections, disks, etc...) to the virtual environment, so most things you
can do with a "real" PC, you can do with a virtual PC too.

True.

The only downside of a virtual PC I can think of is that you'll need a lot
of memory (hard disk, RAM...) to have as many environments as one usually
needs to test when developing web applications.

I tend to work with one virtual machine at a time, but this is more a
limitation on my resources(!) than my computer's...:-)

[Corey B]

Mark Rae wrote:

I can't imagine how you could have t hought that, but never mind... E.g. I
can fire up a web application in VS.NET 2005, set a breakpoint, and then
point Netscape under Linux at it - and can debug it totally live.

Here's an image from my development PC's deskop:
http://www.markrae.com/virtualpc.jpg

The window on the top left is IE7 running on WinXP.

The browser on the top right is IE6 runnong on WinXP - in a virtual machine.

The window on the bottom left is Virtual PC itself, showing some other
virtual machines that I have built:

Beta - is for evaluating beta software - currently has Microsoft Expression
installed.

Ubuntu 6.10 - has FireFox, Epiphany, Konqueror, Netscape, Mozilla and Opera
installed for testing websites on Linux browsers.

Vista - obvious.

VSDec2006CTP - the January CTP version of Orcas i.e. the next version of
Visual Studio - every serious developer should be looking at that.

XBrowser - has IE6, FireFox, Netscape, Opera and Mozilla running under
Windows XP

There are two limitations of VirtualPC currently: it doesn't support 64-bit
guests, and it doesn't support MacOX - I have a Mac Mini for that...

Other than that, it's one of the most useful pieces of software for
developers.

Wow! Thanks for the info. That sounds like something I should really
look in to. Sounds like a really nice way to have multiple
environments for testing. And after getting more information, it DOES
sound like a reasonable solution to testing a different version of IE.

I was under the false impression that it required partitioning of the
hard drive and dual booting - which you could probably agree, would be
a real hassle of a solution.

Thanks again,
Corey

[Nathan Sokalski]

Even though you can have a Virtual PC window running a copy of Windows with
one version of IE and another window next to it running another version of
IE, they are running in different environments. Also, what about when you
are testing a site using Windows XP Pro as the webserver? That could also be
an extra pain in the neck if you have to test from Virtual PC. Side by side
means more than being able to see both browsers at the same time, it means
being able to run the browsers in the same environment at the same time.
--
Nathan Sokalski
nj********@hotmail.com
http://www.nathansokalski.com/

"Mark Rae" <ma**@markNOSPAMrae.comwrote in message
news:%2***************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

"Corey B" <co***********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@s34g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

>Mark Rae wrote:

>>I couldn't agree more! Microsoft would also agree with you:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en

That is "side by side"? I think not.

I think so.

>Unless I am completely misunderstanding what a Virtual PC image is.

You are - completely.

>Can I have two windows right next to each other - one with IE7 and one
with IE6?

Yes - that's the whole point!!!

>Or would I have to reboot and choose which version of Windows to load?

No. I suggest you inform yourself.

[Mark Rae]

"Nathan Sokalski" <nj********@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:OD*************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

Even though you can have a Virtual PC window running a copy of Windows
with one version of IE and another window next to it running another
version of IE, they are running in different environments.

Oh for heaven's sake! Do all your users come to your house and use your
computer when they want to browse your website...?

Also, what about when you are testing a site using Windows XP Pro as the
webserver?

??? What about it...???

That could also be an extra pain in the neck if you have to test from
Virtual PC.

You've already said that don't have the hardware capacity to do this, so you
can have no idea if it could also be a pain in the neck or not - i.e. you
have no practical experience of it, yet *still* you persist in spouting
these ignorant statements about it... I can assure you (not that that will
make the slightest difference to you because, even though you have just
graduated, you already know everything) that it isn't a pain in the neck at
all - it's an incredibly easy and cost-effective way of cross-browser /
cross-platform testing.

Side by side means more than being able to see both browsers at the same
time, it means being able to run the browsers in the same environment at
the same time.

You really don't get it, do you...? You *can't* run IE6 and IE7 in the same
environment (i.e. installation of Windows) at the same time, neither FireFox
1.5x and 2.0.x etc - neither can anyone else, and that includes your users -
so this ludicrous "argument" of yours about not being able to do something
which is impossible anyway is utterly irrelevent.