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

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 19-01-2010 09:00, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article<4b5519c7$0$278$14726298 at news.sunsite.dk>,
> 	Arne Vajhøj<arne at vajhoej.dk>  writes:
>> On 18-01-2010 12:42, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> In article<v4adnax7iuzG8cnWnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d at giganews.com>,
>>> 	"Richard B. Gilbert"<rgilbert88 at comcast.net>   writes:
>>>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>> In article<4b53ca5d$0$273$14726298 at news.sunsite.dk>,
>>>>> 	Arne Vajhøj<arne at vajhoej.dk>   writes:
>>>>>> On 14-01-2010 08:07, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>>>> In article<4b4e8718$0$282$14726298 at news.sunsite.dk>,
>>>>>>> 	Arne Vajhøj<arne at vajhoej.dk>    writes:
>>>>>>>> On 13-01-2010 21:31, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>> Opera 10 also passed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IE8 will most likely never pass ACID3. It will be IE9.
>>>>>>> And if you are writting web pages that use features of ACID3 that IE
>>>>>>> doesn't do and you competitor is not who is going to pay the price?
>>>>>>> The target should be your desired audience and not some obscure ivory
>>>>>>> tower standard.
>>>>>> It is very good to follow the standards.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only if there is some tangible gain in doing so beyond the desires
>>>>> (and profits) of the standards body.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It may not be good to use all features in the standard.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of the standards I have seen are all or nothing.  If you ignore
>>>>> parts of the standard then you are just as non-compliant as if you
>>>>> used none of it.
>>>>
>>>> And just what is the payoff for "standards compliance"?  If your system
>>>> does what you need and want, how much extra would you pay to make it
>>>> "standards compliant".  $0.00?  I thought so!
>>>
>>> Which was my point, exactly.  Being standard compliant doesn't pay
>>> the mortgage.  Reaching customers does.  Considering all the non-
>>> standard stuff that DEC has pushed thru the years, it is really
>>> funny to see everyone here screaming "Standards are a must!"
>>
>> You mean the difference between VMS and the Unix standards (de facto
>> and formal) helped make VMS a success??
>>
>> I don't think so.
>
> Of course not.  I mean all the "Digital Eextensions" to programming
> languages that made programs developed on the VAX (and later Alpha)
> totally non-portable to any other environment.

That is what I am talking about.

Non-portable = bad for business.

Arne