[Info-vax] IE8 got me too :-( Sorry Jeff.

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 18-01-2010 11:39, Paul Sture wrote:
> In article<00A97BA4.8E447103 at SendSpamHere.ORG>,
>   VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>
>> In article<4b53cc31$0$273$14726298 at news.sunsite.dk>,
>> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=<arne at vajhoej.dk>  writes:
>>> On 14-01-2010 08:04, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> In article<00A97820.3EB74593 at sendspamhere.org>,
>>>> 	VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
>>>>> In article<4b4e7946$0$279$14726298 at news.sunsite.dk>,
>>>>> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=<arne at vajhoej.dk>   writes:
>>>>>> On 13-01-2010 08:50, AEF wrote:
>>>>>>> I actually tried IE8 at work, hoping it would be better than IE6. But
>>>>>>> it was blurrier on the monitor. I checked it on others' machines and
>>>>>>> the blurriness varied, and all the monitors were ViewSonics. (I did
>>>>>>> only check 2 or 3 others, but mine was blurrier than IE6 and that's
>>>>>>> all that really mattered to me.) So I went back to IE6. And I did
>>>>>>> check if you could do that before I tried IE8. It turns out that all
>>>>>>> you have to do is uninstall it, except that a certain OS patch would
>>>>>>> get in the way if you have it and you'd have to uninstall that first,
>>>>>>> then reinstall after expunging IE8 from your machine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do have Firefox installed at work and I use that for some sites, but
>>>>>>> others work better on IE6. Hate the spastic Find function in IE6, but
>>>>>>> at least you can use it to highlight a link, or get near it with an
>>>>>>> easier target and then tab to the link, and without the mouse just
>>>>>>> press Return and it works! Safari can't do that, but Safari is better
>>>>>>> with multiple choice items in forms and for printing. Safari puts all
>>>>>>> the print params on a single page! I've never understood why all the
>>>>>>> important things like page size, orientation, number of copies,
>>>>>>> certain things on the Page Setup dialog box and such aren't all in one
>>>>>>> place. WHY THE HELL DON'T THEY PUT THEM ALL IN ONE PLACE LIKE SAFARI
>>>>>>> DOES? Arghhhh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IE6 is pretty bad in AJAX context due to its deviation
>>>>> >from the standards. IE8 is a lot better. It actually passed
>>>>>> ACID2.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me know when it can pass ACID3.  AFAIK, only Safari does so.  Firefox
>>>>> is
>>>>> close.  It gets to 93/100.
>>>>
>>>> Why should anyone care?  It is good business to make sure your web
>>>> pages work with as many browsers as possible and not just with some
>>>> obscure standard. It is customers being able to see your web page
>>>> that makes sales, not some claim that you wrote your page to comply
>>>> with ACID3.
>>>>
>>>> Too many people in this profession have lost site of the core value.
>>>> The computer needs to adapt to the user, not the user to the computer.
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>> In the 90's some people somehow got the idea that software
>>> engineering practices did not apply to HTML and friends.
>>>
>>> That was wrong.
>>>
>>> Writing C code with undefined behavior and hack it to work
>>> on HW X, OS Y and C compiler Y may work, but it will result in
>>> huge cost for future maintenance.
>>>
>>> Writing non-W3C-compliant HTML and hack it to work on
>>> OS X and browser Y may work, but it will also cost in the end.
>>
>> That would be Safari on OS X. ;)
>
> I wouldn't count on it, but:
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/643k4u
>
> "Addressing a developer conference in Sydney Australia, Microsoft CEO
> Steve Ballmer said the idea of using WebKit as the rendering engine
> within its web browser was "interesting" and added "we may look at that."
>
> On the other hand:
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1705
>
> http://www.browser-watch.com/2009/03/24/internet-explorer-9-will-not-use-
> webkit/

In the end MS will do what they think will make most money for them.

The can pick a standard engine and reduce cost or they can try
and make their own engine good to get a competitive advantage
(even though that will not result in direct sales, only in direct
sales of the OS).

Arne