IE. The horror
-
That is high for a tech website. Wonder if it is from corporate machines not allowed to upgrade or IE users who don't like the IE7 UI.
cheers, Paul M. Watson.
Paul Watson wrote:
corporate machines not allowed to upgrade
Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winner here. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
-
Paul Watson wrote:
corporate machines not allowed to upgrade
Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a winner here. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
Yep. My web app looks better on IE7 than IE6, but I can't roll out IE7 yet.
Cheetah. Ferret. Gonads. What more can I say? - Pete O'Hanlon
-
Curious. Every time I complained about IE here, I got seriously voted down. So far, you have only been up-voted. Seems like IE's being good or not also depends on who says it. :) Anyway, I am forced to work with IE6 and the rendering engine is indeed one solid piece of crap.
I'm waiting for Windows Feng Shui, where you have to re-arrange your icons in a manner which best enables your application to run. Richard Jones www.immo-brasseurs.com
-
How dominant is IE usage on CP? And how many CP users still use IE6? IE7 is a lot better (though still a bit "quirky", though sadly not in the "cute goth chick" quirky way.)
cheers, Paul M. Watson.
-
That is high for a tech website. Wonder if it is from corporate machines not allowed to upgrade or IE users who don't like the IE7 UI.
cheers, Paul M. Watson.
-
And you are a developer? Do they restrict you from installing other apps. too?
cheers, Paul M. Watson.
-
I feel your pain. We came up with a postback free multi layered modal popup interface using the Ajax Control Toolkit. Worked great in Firefox. IE utterly utterly ballsed it up with elements incorrectly Z ordered, mouse clicks falling through to the wrong elements. Moral. Build your concept layout in Firefox, but be sure to test it properly in IE before committing any time to it. And still the end users say "why would I want to use anything other than IE". How about using a browser that doesn't need to spend 3 seconds "connecting" to about:blank. WTF is there to connect to?
-
Do I like IE 6? Well, for the most part, it works for what I use it for at work. Why haven't we upgraded to IE 7? Becuase, before doing so, we have to ensure all applications on the Intranet will work without issue, including third party applications. This is very time consuming and difficult to complete when you have a mix of operating systems (NT, 2000, XP, Server 2000, Server 2003, Terminal Server, etc.) When XP was first introduced, a select portion of the company was all over it, using it as though it were manna from Heaven... until, of course, their applications didn't work anymore. Then, we were suddenly forced to upgrade and repair applications that had been working just fine. So, if its not broke, don't fix it. If IE6 allows you to perform necessary business functions, then, use it. If it doesn't, then address it. Tim
Tim Carmichael wrote:
Then, we were suddenly forced to upgrade and repair applications that had been working just fine.
This is why I have always been a proponent of allowing multiple versions of IE to run side my side, or at least allow you to designate a rendering engine on a per URL basis. In reality a browser should be nothing more than a rendering engine that snaps into a common frame much like the MMC. I guess I just think about components far too much.
-
It annoyed me so much that I went over to using Firefox for development. I now have a 3 second pause waiting for Firefox to start. Oh well, at least it's only once per session rather than once per tab.
-
Tim Carmichael wrote:
Then, we were suddenly forced to upgrade and repair applications that had been working just fine.
This is why I have always been a proponent of allowing multiple versions of IE to run side my side, or at least allow you to designate a rendering engine on a per URL basis. In reality a browser should be nothing more than a rendering engine that snaps into a common frame much like the MMC. I guess I just think about components far too much.
Ray Cassick wrote:
I guess I just think about components far too much.
Naw. At this point, I have multiple versions of multiple browsers installed on my dev box, and test using all of them frequently. That includes one version of IE - IE6. So the cost of testing in any current browser except IE7 is a few seconds + actual testing time, while IE7 involves moving tests to another machine / VM + testing time. End result? IE7 tends to have more outstanding issues (with my stuff) than any other browser. It's insane.
----
You're right. These facts that you've laid out totally contradict the wild ramblings that I pulled off the back of cornflakes packets.
-
And you are a developer? Do they restrict you from installing other apps. too?
cheers, Paul M. Watson.
-
Still coding for IE6? You are the one allowing them to stay around huh ? :)
Rocky <>< Recent Blog Post: Doughboy – R.I.P. Thinking about Silverlight? www.SilverlightCity.com
-
Tim Carmichael wrote:
Then, we were suddenly forced to upgrade and repair applications that had been working just fine.
This is why I have always been a proponent of allowing multiple versions of IE to run side my side, or at least allow you to designate a rendering engine on a per URL basis. In reality a browser should be nothing more than a rendering engine that snaps into a common frame much like the MMC. I guess I just think about components far too much.
Microsoft has picked up on needs for compatiblity and gives you the option in IE8 of using the IE7, IE8 or Quirks Mode for rendering. I guess for some they should have exteneded that to IE6..
Rocky <>< Recent Blog Post: Doughboy – R.I.P. Thinking about Silverlight? www.SilverlightCity.com
-
After what feels like a complete waste of a day I have graduated to a new level of being offended at IE's rendering engine. I will defend it no more. It's fit only for street urchins, persons of low repute and those engaged in moral turptitude.
cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
engaged in moral turptitude
No, that involves a commitment.