473,320 Members | 1,961 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,320 software developers and data experts.

IE7 and Web Standards

Paul Thurrott:

"Wilson's (IE Lead Program Manager) post is disappointing because Microsoft
doesn't plan to fully support the latest CSS standard in IE 7.0..."

http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/...7208.html?Ad=1

Roy
Aug 3 '05 #1
22 2140
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
Paul Thurrott:
"Wilson's (IE Lead Program Manager) post is disappointing because Microsoft
doesn't plan to fully support the latest CSS standard in IE 7.0..."

IE7 is completely irrelevant to us and will be for at least another 5
years. MS continues to pioneer trailing edge technology in most innovative
ways.

--
jmm dash list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)
Aug 3 '05 #2
Roy Schestowitz:
Paul Thurrott:
Whoever that guy is. Judging by this one article, he is noöne to be
taken serious (regarding webdesign).
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/...7208.html?Ad=1


I don't understand why webdesigners are disappointed that they are not
included in the IE7b1 testing group, because for all I know this one
doesn't change that much for them anyway. If IE7b2 was restricted in the
same way, I could understand the disappointment, if it indeed included
the promised bug-fixes and improvements. Until then let sysadmins etc.
check out the alleged security improvements.
Of course it's sad, but nothing new, that MS doesn't comply to industry
standards, where beta versions are pretty much feature-fixed---some
attribute that to release candidates (RC) only, though. Therefore beta1
would have to be considered an alpha release or, in Opera's terms, a
technical preview (TP).

Chris Wilson's blog post
<http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx> lists many of
the main annoyances with IE today, so, if they're indeed being taken
care of, we should be glad, instead of calling for boycot. Noöne serious
expects Microsoft to become the leader in standards compliance with
their first release in five years (not counting IE/Mac).

Regarding Acid2, it's nice to fulfill that, which Firefox and Opera
don't, but the (still incomplete) CSS 2.1 test suite is more important.
It's reasonable for MS and other browser developers to target CSS 2.1
conformance now, instead of 2.0.

One CSS 2.1 feature we likely won't see in IE7 are the table related
values of the 'display' value, because that would probably require a
complete rewrite of one of the major parts of the rendering engine.
Maybe they should have checked out the possibility of porting and
improving Tasman, the rendering engine of IE5/Mac, because that doesn't
have as much legacy ballast---what do I know, maybe they did.

Backwards compatibility isn't really an issue for MS: I don't expect any
changes at all in Quirks Mode. In Standards Mode they can make all the
standards conforming changes they want, despite breaking a few sites
stupidly relying on CSS hacks. Hacks were always discouraged by anyone
with a sane mind (so was DTD switching, though). My fear is nevertheless
that they once again think bug compatibility was important even in
Standards Mode.

Besides, if the GUI was fixed to what first screenshots indicate, that'd
be a far worse problem for users than CSS conformity.
Aug 3 '05 #3
Christoph Päper wrote:
Roy Schestowitz:
Paul Thurrott:


Whoever that guy is.


He's been writing books about Windows stuff for many years. I have an
early Visual Interdev book of his, and corresponded with him back
then. He was very helpful.

http://www.winsupersite.com/

Note I am just pointing to some references for your question, not
whether he is an expert. <g>

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
Aug 3 '05 #4
Jim Moe wrote:
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
Paul Thurrott:
"Wilson's (IE Lead Program Manager) post is disappointing because
Microsoft
doesn't plan to fully support the latest CSS standard in IE 7.0..."

IE7 is completely irrelevant to us and will be for at least another 5
years.


Why? Do you think it will be that long before it shows up on Windows
Update and comes loaded on all new standard-order Windows machines?
Aug 3 '05 #5
Harlan Messinger wrote:
Jim Moe wrote:
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
Paul Thurrott:
"Wilson's (IE Lead Program Manager) post is disappointing because
Microsoft
doesn't plan to fully support the latest CSS standard in IE 7.0..."

IE7 is completely irrelevant to us and will be for at least another 5
years.


Why? Do you think it will be that long before it shows up on Windows
Update and comes loaded on all new standard-order Windows machines?


It only works under Windows XP or later. Most machines are still running
Windows 2000 (or something to that effect).

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com
Aug 3 '05 #6
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
Christoph Päper wrote:
Roy Schestowitz:
Paul Thurrott:


Whoever that guy is.


He's been writing books about Windows stuff for many years. I have an
early Visual Interdev book of his, and corresponded with him back
then. He was very helpful.

http://www.winsupersite.com/

Note I am just pointing to some references for your question, not
whether he is an expert. <g>


It's possible that his critique craves some attention. He ended up being
Slashdotted, also when he severely criticised Windows Longhorn (Vista). He
doesn't appear to be happy with choices that have recently been made by
Microsoft. He was much more excited about the release of Tiger.

I hope this adds a wee bit of context.

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com
Aug 3 '05 #7
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:

Jim Moe wrote:
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
Paul Thurrott:
"Wilson's (IE Lead Program Manager) post is disappointing because
Microsoft
doesn't plan to fully support the latest CSS standard in IE 7.0..."
IE7 is completely irrelevant to us and will be for at least another 5
years.


Why? Do you think it will be that long before it shows up on Windows
Update and comes loaded on all new standard-order Windows machines?

It only works under Windows XP or later. Most machines are still running
Windows 2000 (or something to that effect).


Windows XP has been out for three years and most new (non-server)
machines come with it, so your remark doesn't address the question of
why it would take *another* five years for IE7 to be anything other than
"completely irrelevant to us".
Aug 3 '05 #8
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:

Jim Moe wrote:
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
Paul Thurrott:
"Wilson's (IE Lead Program Manager) post is disappointing because
Microsoft
doesn't plan to fully support the latest CSS standard in IE 7.0..."
IE7 is completely irrelevant to us and will be for at least another 5
years.


Why? Do you think it will be that long before it shows up on Windows
Update and comes loaded on all new standard-order Windows machines?

It only works under Windows XP or later. Most machines are still running
Windows 2000 (or something to that effect).


What source of stats do you depend on for your assertion that most
machines are still running Win2000? Stats I follow indicate that
Win2000 usage is at about 12%, and XP usage at about 65%.
Aug 3 '05 #9
C A Upsdell wrote:
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:

Jim Moe wrote:

Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>Paul Thurrott:
>"Wilson's (IE Lead Program Manager) post is disappointing because
>Microsoft
>doesn't plan to fully support the latest CSS standard in IE 7.0..."
>

IE7 is completely irrelevant to us and will be for at least another 5
years.

Why? Do you think it will be that long before it shows up on Windows
Update and comes loaded on all new standard-order Windows machines?

It only works under Windows XP or later. Most machines are still running
Windows 2000 (or something to that effect).


What source of stats do you depend on for your assertion that most
machines are still running Win2000? Stats I follow indicate that
Win2000 usage is at about 12%, and XP usage at about 65%.


Finally found it...

http://news.com.com/The+slow+road+to+Windows+XP/ ...
2100-1016_3-5746046.html?part=rss&tag=5746046&subj=news

(long URL so append lines and remove " ...")

It took me a while to find this again. I said "something to that effect"
because it speaks of businesses and I think it also refers to the States.

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com
Aug 3 '05 #10
Harlan Messinger wrote:

IE7 is completely irrelevant to us and will be for at least another
5 years.


Why? Do you think it will be that long before it shows up on Windows
Update and comes loaded on all new standard-order Windows machines?

It will take that long before IE6 becomes not worth designing around.
Like Navigator v4.x is largely ignored now.
IE7 is mostly a bug fix release. At least that is how they are
portraying it at this time. Unless MS seriously bungles some aspect of
standards compliance, IE7 will just be another mostly conforming browser
with a quirk here and there. Not the PITA IE6 is.
IE7 is coming to *new* computers only, winXP sp2 and later. Not
everyone has Windows Update enabled, especially those on dialup lines.
(Typical update sizes start at 20 MiB.)

--
jmm dash list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)
Aug 3 '05 #11
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
C A Upsdell wrote:
Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>Paul Thurrott:
>>"Wilson's (IE Lead Program Manager) post is disappointing because
>>Microsoft
>>doesn't plan to fully support the latest CSS standard in IE 7.0..."
>>
> IE7 is completely irrelevant to us and will be for at least another 5
>years.

Why? Do you think it will be that long before it shows up on Windows
Update and comes loaded on all new standard-order Windows machines?

It only works under Windows XP or later. Most machines are still running
Windows 2000 (or something to that effect).


What source of stats do you depend on for your assertion that most
machines are still running Win2000? Stats I follow indicate that
Win2000 usage is at about 12%, and XP usage at about 65%.


Finally found it...

http://news.com.com/The+slow+road+to+Windows+XP/ ...
2100-1016_3-5746046.html?part=rss&tag=5746046&subj=news

(long URL so append lines and remove " ...")

It took me a while to find this again. I said "something to that effect"
because it speaks of businesses and I think it also refers to the States.


This June 14 article claims that "nearly half of business PCs are still
running the older Windows 2000." But many PCs are not business PCs.
There are various stats sources which indicate that the percentage for
all PCs is closer to 12%. See:

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/

This suggests to me that IE7 usage will grow considerably faster than
you expect.

An interesting perspective on this issue is that it took IE6 only 16
months to capture 50% of the browser market. And IE7 may grow much
faster if, as I would expect, it becomes an automatic update for
everyone with XP SP2 and up.
Aug 3 '05 #12
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 14:42:27 -0400, C A Upsdell
<""cupsdellXXX\"@-@-@XXXupsdell.com"> wrote:
This June 14 article claims that "nearly half of business PCs are still
running the older Windows 2000." But many PCs are not business PCs.


If you are selling to business customers then that 50% is _very_
significant.

Although, MS's blogs indicate (possible) progress in IE7's standards
support, as long as it is XP only it's already failed IMO. YMMV.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
- Stuart Millington ALL HTML e-mail rejected -
- mailto:ph***@dsv1.co.uk http://w3.z-add.co.uk/ -
Aug 3 '05 #13
Stuart Millington wrote:
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 14:42:27 -0400, C A Upsdell
<""cupsdellXXX\"@-@-@XXXupsdell.com"> wrote:
This June 14 article claims that "nearly half of business PCs are still
running the older Windows 2000." But many PCs are not business PCs.
If you are selling to business customers then that 50% is _very_
significant.


12% is significant regardless, but surely most significant for B2B
sites. and less so for other sites.
Although, MS's blogs indicate (possible) progress in IE7's standards
support, as long as it is XP only it's already failed IMO. YMMV.


If 65% have XP, and most people have set XP for automatic updates ...
don't you think that IE7 might spread a lot faster than (say) IE6 did?
Aug 4 '05 #14
C A Upsdell <""cupsdellXXX\"@-@-@XXXupsdell.com"> wrote:
This June 14 article claims that "nearly half of business PCs are
still running the older Windows 2000." But many PCs are not
business PCs. There are various stats sources which indicate that
the percentage for all PCs is closer to 12%. See:


I totally agree that many PCs are not business PCs and don't have
Windows 2000 installed, but I much prefer to see things myself.
Everybody who's really interested in statistics should falsify his own.

When I try to recall the windows home installations I've seen this
year, I've seen XP two times, ME once, and the rest was all 98. :)

Aug 4 '05 #15
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 23:59:48 -0400, C A Upsdell
<""cupsdellXXX\"@-@-@XXXupsdell.com"> wrote:
Stuart Millington wrote:

Although, MS's blogs indicate (possible) progress in IE7's standards
support, as long as it is XP only it's already failed IMO. YMMV.


If 65% have XP, and most people have set XP for automatic updates ...
don't you think that IE7 might spread a lot faster than (say) IE6 did?


For XP users, yes. But, to a smaller % of machines. Unlike previous
versions of IE, the use of IE7 on the significant % (whatever the %
is) of pre-XP machines will be zero. This is not good.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
- Stuart Millington ALL HTML e-mail rejected -
- mailto:ph***@dsv1.co.uk http://w3.z-add.co.uk/ -
Aug 4 '05 #16
Stuart Millington wrote:
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 23:59:48 -0400, C A Upsdell
<""cupsdellXXX\"@-@-@XXXupsdell.com"> wrote:
Stuart Millington wrote:


Although, MS's blogs indicate (possible) progress in IE7's standards
support, as long as it is XP only it's already failed IMO. YMMV.


If 65% have XP, and most people have set XP for automatic updates ...
don't you think that IE7 might spread a lot faster than (say) IE6 did?

For XP users, yes. But, to a smaller % of machines. Unlike previous
versions of IE, the use of IE7 on the significant % (whatever the %
is) of pre-XP machines will be zero. This is not good.


I think that we are dealing with two populations: business PCs, and
personal PCs.

For the business PCs -- which, as was pointed out earlier, 48% still use
Win2000 -- PCs are replaced about every 4 years. This means that
Win2000 will become effectively extinct within 4 years.

For personal PCs, perhaps 10% use WinME or older, and most of the rest
use XP. I suspect that those using WinME or older will be replacing
their PCs fairly soon, as their current PCs are very old.

The bottom line, I think, is that natural attrition will fairly quickly
(say by 2008) have weeded out most of the Windows PCs that can't run IE7.
Aug 5 '05 #17
Tim
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 12:21:48 -0400, Harlan Messinger sent:
Windows XP has been out for three years and most new (non-server)
machines come with it, so your remark doesn't address the question of
why it would take *another* five years for IE7 to be anything other than
"completely irrelevant to us"


The time it takes places to replace their PCs? Let's face it, many people
(and businesses) will carry on using a PC until it stops working, many
never even updating anything on it. Many won't get XP until they buy a
new PC that includes it.

--
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.

Aug 5 '05 #18
On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:17:48 -0400, C A Upsdell
<""cupsdellXXX\"@-@-@XXXupsdell.com"> wrote:
I think that we are dealing with two populations: business PCs, and
personal PCs.

For the business PCs -- which, as was pointed out earlier, 48% still use
Win2000 -- PCs are replaced about every 4 years. This means that
Win2000 will become effectively extinct within 4 years.
As Tim said earlier, it depends on the business. Some smaller
companies I know are still running 95, with a few 98 and the
occasional NT box thrown in. More are primarily running 98 with the
occasional W2K box. Upgrades depend on when the machine physically
dies or when the latest version of <insert business critical software>
won't work with it. It depends if your customers are "small"
businesses (& typically miserly!), SME's or corporate's.

Either way, I think 4 years for W2K and IE6 to die to a point where
they can be ignored by commercial web developers is optimistic.

For personal PCs, perhaps 10% use WinME or older, and most of the rest
use XP. I suspect that those using WinME or older will be replacing
their PCs fairly soon, as their current PCs are very old.
I've only just moved my main home PC from W2K to XP Pro and my older
laptop won't run XP. Although, it won't hurt to keep that laptop for
IE6 testing ;-)
The bottom line, I think, is that natural attrition will fairly quickly
(say by 2008) have weeded out most of the Windows PCs that can't run IE7.


YMDoesV ;-)

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
- Stuart Millington ALL HTML e-mail rejected -
- mailto:ph***@dsv1.co.uk http://w3.z-add.co.uk/ -
Aug 5 '05 #19
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 03:20:39 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
Paul Thurrott:

"Wilson's (IE Lead Program Manager) post is disappointing because Microsoft
doesn't plan to fully support the latest CSS standard in IE 7.0..."

http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/...7208.html?Ad=1

Roy


I'm not even sure what that means "support the latest CSS standards".
Neither CSS 2.1 or 3 is even in recommendation stage, and we all know (or
should anyways) that a browser that implements a standard before it's
finalized is just creating yet another nightmare we have to support when
it's implementation invariably differs from the final standard.

CSS2.0 was never fully implemented by any browser, and isn't going to be
(which is the reason for 2.1).

Frankly, if *ALL* Microsoft did was fix the bugs in IE6 i'd be ecstactic at
having a browser that did what I expected it to do, even if it didn't
support everything I wanted it to. My life would be SO much simpler.

Happily, that doesn't appear to be all their doing, though they're not
going to have full support, with lots of stuff they didn't support earlier.
Is it a disappointment? Sure, but I doubt anyone expected it to be
perfect.
Aug 9 '05 #20
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 03:20:39 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
Paul Thurrott:

"Wilson's (IE Lead Program Manager) post is disappointing because
Microsoft doesn't plan to fully support the latest CSS standard in IE
7.0..."

http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/...7208.html?Ad=1

Roy
I'm not even sure what that means "support the latest CSS standards".
Neither CSS 2.1 or 3 is even in recommendation stage, and we all know (or
should anyways) that a browser that implements a standard before it's
finalized is just creating yet another nightmare we have to support when
it's implementation invariably differs from the final standard.

These words were not mine, they were Paul's. I fully agree with your
argument though.

CSS2.0 was never fully implemented by any browser, and isn't going to be
(which is the reason for 2.1).

Frankly, if *ALL* Microsoft did was fix the bugs in IE6 i'd be ecstactic
at having a browser that did what I expected it to do, even if it didn't
support everything I wanted it to. My life would be SO much simpler.

However, this assumes that you are using Windows XP. This creates a
different type of "nightmare" as you called it. Once developers begin to
cater for a majority (Windows XP, possibly with IE7), older computer
systems will suffer. I wrote about it a few hours ago:

http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archiv...ndows-snubbed/

Then again, here is more of a reason to use Firefox...

Happily, that doesn't appear to be all their doing, though they're not
going to have full support, with lots of stuff they didn't support
earlier.
Is it a disappointment? Sure, but I doubt anyone expected it to be
perfect.

The disappointment can be broken up as follows:

1) IE7 only supports XP+. This was /not/ the initial plan

2) IE7 'extends' RSS without any world-wide consensus

3) IE7 keeps some developers in the dark

4) IE7 primarily imitates Firefox (tabs, search bar, maybe live bookmarks)

5) IE7 will urge users to use MSN search (unfair exploitation of a monopoly)

I could probably think of more, but I'll stick to the 5-point 'take home'
rule.

Roy

--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com
Aug 9 '05 #21
> I'm not even sure what that means "support the latest CSS standards".
Neither CSS 2.1 or 3 is even in recommendation stage
Yes, but from the CSS 2.1 spec: "There must be at least two interoperable
implementations for every feature." In other words, implementors are
expected to start working on CSS 2.1 support *now*, and in fact, the spec
will never become a recommendation until at least two implementations are
made for each feature.
and we all know (or
should anyways) that a browser that implements a standard before it's
finalized is just creating yet another nightmare we have to support when
it's implementation invariably differs from the final standard.
The final recommendation won't be very different from the current draft.
The only thing likely to change is a few dropped features if those
features prove impossible or very hard to implement.
CSS2.0 was never fully implemented by any browser, and isn't going to be
(which is the reason for 2.1).
This is also part of the reason in the change of W3C policy (as above).
Frankly, if *ALL* Microsoft did was fix the bugs in IE6 i'd be ecstactic
at
having a browser that did what I expected it to do, even if it didn't
support everything I wanted it to. My life would be SO much simpler.
Yep. Before they even consider adding new features to try competing with
Opera, Firefox and Safari, they should be fixing bugs.
Is it a disappointment? Sure, but I doubt anyone expected it to be
perfect.


I was hoping for a perfect engine in the final, so I wouldn't have to (as
a web developer) test in Firefox, IE6 *and* IE7.

--
Kevin Wu Won exclipy #40979410
@gmail.com
Aug 11 '05 #22
Also sprach Kevin Wu Won:
I was hoping for a perfect engine in the final, so I wouldn't have to
(as a web developer) test in Firefox, IE6 *and* IE7.


Will it be possible to run IE6 and IE7 side by side? I know one can have
IE4, IE5, IE5.5 and IE6 running side by side, but what about IE7?
Aug 11 '05 #23

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

0
by: MarionEll | last post by:
XML 2003 Interoperability Demonstrations to Showcase Industry Standards, Integrated Vendor Solutions Alexandria, VA – Nov. 19, 2003 – IDEAlliance, a leading trade association dedicated...
162
by: Isaac Grover | last post by:
Hi everyone, Just out of curiosity I recently pointed one of my hand-typed pages at the W3 Validator, and my hand-typed code was just ripped to shreds. Then I pointed some major sites...
4
by: dotNetDave | last post by:
About three weeks ago I released the first .NET coding standards book titled "VSDN Tips & Tricks .NET Coding Standards". Here is what the famous author/ speaker Deborah Kurata says about it: ...
17
by: Ian | last post by:
Hi there, Can anybody tell me where I can find a standards documents like you have in c#. I am trying to write javascript and would like to know what standards are i.e. Where to put the...
23
by: Mario T. Lanza | last post by:
I have been authoring web sites for several years now and recently come to value web standards (as touted by Zeldman and many other web gurus). I have noticed with frustration that there are so...
250
by: Sugapablo | last post by:
Just out of curiosity, while checking on a site I was working on, I decided to throw a couple of the web's most popular URLs into the W3C Markup Validator. Out of microsoft.com, google.com,...
115
by: junky_fellow | last post by:
What is a C object ? If i have some function "func()" in my C program, then can i say that "func()" is a C object ? or if i have some function pointer (ptr) which contains the address of...
9
by: Jason Gogela | last post by:
Does anyone out there know why I should care whether a <span> is nested in a <p> or vice versa? What is the bennafit of adhering to this standard? It seems to me that regardless of which way you...
3
by: editormt | last post by:
A recent poll asked if programming standards are used by development organisations... and if they are controlled. None: 20% Yes, but without control: 49% Yes, with control: 31% Participants:...
53
by: Jim Cook | last post by:
I previously had asked if there was an online standards file so I could read that and answer my own questions without posting here and getting flamed for not having done my homework. I was...
0
by: DolphinDB | last post by:
The formulas of 101 quantitative trading alphas used by WorldQuant were presented in the paper 101 Formulaic Alphas. However, some formulas are complex, leading to challenges in calculation. Take...
0
by: DolphinDB | last post by:
Tired of spending countless mintues downsampling your data? Look no further! In this article, you’ll learn how to efficiently downsample 6.48 billion high-frequency records to 61 million...
0
by: ryjfgjl | last post by:
ExcelToDatabase: batch import excel into database automatically...
1
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
0
by: jfyes | last post by:
As a hardware engineer, after seeing that CEIWEI recently released a new tool for Modbus RTU Over TCP/UDP filtering and monitoring, I actively went to its official website to take a look. It turned...
1
by: PapaRatzi | last post by:
Hello, I am teaching myself MS Access forms design and Visual Basic. I've created a table to capture a list of Top 30 singles and forms to capture new entries. The final step is a form (unbound)...
0
by: CloudSolutions | last post by:
Introduction: For many beginners and individual users, requiring a credit card and email registration may pose a barrier when starting to use cloud servers. However, some cloud server providers now...
0
by: Shællîpôpï 09 | last post by:
If u are using a keypad phone, how do u turn on JavaScript, to access features like WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram....
0
by: af34tf | last post by:
Hi Guys, I have a domain whose name is BytesLimited.com, and I want to sell it. Does anyone know about platforms that allow me to list my domain in auction for free. Thank you

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.