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

[Corey B]

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]

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]

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/...90-958F-4B64-B5F1-73D0A413C8EF&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]

I couldn't agree more! Microsoft would also agree with you:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...90-958F-4B64-B5F1-73D0A413C8EF&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]

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]

I think so.


You are - completely.


Yes - that's the whole point!!!


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,

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

 

[Mark Rae]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Mark Rae]

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.