Re: where can i get IE for os x?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Bruce Grubb, Apr 26, 2006.

  1. Bruce Grubb

    Bruce Grubb Guest

    In article <>,
    Griffin <> wrote:

    > In article
    > <>,
    > dorayme <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article
    > > <>,
    > > Michael Vilain <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > In article
    > > > <>,
    > > > dorayme <> wrote:
    > > >

    > > snip
    > > >
    > > > One point, thought. The way IE 5.23 misbehaves on MacOS X is different
    > > > from how IE 6 misbehaves on Windows.

    > >
    > > You are not wrong about this, IE Mac is almost useless for the
    > > purpose of ensuring your site is not too bad on IE Win.
    > >
    > > > So, to really test my sites, I
    > > > have to use VPC and XP to see how it displays and code special CSS
    > > > sheets for the IE 6 browser.

    > >
    > > What I do is have an old PC next to my Mac and look at things on
    > > it.

    >
    > You may find this site helpful. All you need do is enter your URL;
    > wait a while; check back for all the browser screen shots you requested.
    >
    > <http://browsershots.org/>
    >
    > Mission Statement
    > The web should look good for all users.


    HTML is NOT a page layout format people. The moment you talk about 'looks'
    you are trying to force it into that role and give yourself headaches.

    'Best viewed in 1024x768' - best example that your web site is designed by
    a monkey.
    Bruce Grubb, Apr 26, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bruce Grubb

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Bruce Grubb <> wrote:

    > > > > dorayme <> wrote:


    > > > What I do is have an old PC next to my Mac and look at things on
    > > > it.

    >
    > HTML is NOT a page layout format people. The moment you talk about 'looks'
    > you are trying to force it into that role and give yourself headaches.



    You are just being silly now. "The moment you talk about
    'looks'..." ! You need to step back from jumping to conclusions
    so easily.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Apr 26, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bruce Grubb

    Dave Hinz Guest

    On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:51:31 +1000, dorayme <> wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Bruce Grubb <> wrote:
    >
    >> HTML is NOT a page layout format people. The moment you talk about 'looks'
    >> you are trying to force it into that role and give yourself headaches.


    > You are just being silly now. "The moment you talk about
    > 'looks'..." ! You need to step back from jumping to conclusions
    > so easily.


    Wow. You're actually for real, aren't you. It's like this caracature
    of someone without the slightest clue or background, it's so _perfect_.
    Dave Hinz, Apr 26, 2006
    #3
  4. Bruce Grubb

    Bruce Grubb Guest

    In article <>,
    Dave Hinz <> wrote:

    > On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:51:31 +1000, dorayme <>
    > wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > Bruce Grubb <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> HTML is NOT a page layout format people. The moment you talk about
    > >> 'looks'
    > >> you are trying to force it into that role and give yourself headaches.

    >
    > > You are just being silly now. "The moment you talk about
    > > 'looks'..." ! You need to step back from jumping to conclusions
    > > so easily.

    >
    > Wow. You're actually for real, aren't you. It's like this caracature
    > of someone without the slightest clue or background, it's so _perfect_.


    YOu think this is a laugh riot go read the excuses VPenman gave for his
    insanely poor HTML in the "CR2 Expansion Bug/Feature" thread
    <http://tinyurl.com/h2b9b> some years ago. That guy's ignorance was
    astounding and his efforts to explain it were pathetic.
    Bruce Grubb, Apr 26, 2006
    #4
  5. Bruce Grubb

    Andy Dingley Guest

    Bruce Grubb wrote:

    > YOu think this is a laugh riot go read the excuses VPenman gave for his
    > insanely poor HTML in the "CR2 Expansion Bug/Feature" thread


    I did. You came out of that sufficiently badly to warrant an immediate
    <plonk>.

    > That guy's ignorance was astounding and his efforts to explain it were pathetic.


    No, he was merely ignorant (when was HTML a required skill for games
    developers who'd bought a duff tool and had already expressed interest
    in fixing the problem?). However he showed every sign of remedying
    this.

    You looked like a spoiled teenager who was using a trivial situation to
    excuse a pointless flamewar. Bit like this thread really. Shame you
    don't even appear to have grown up in the past years - what are you
    now, about 24?
    Andy Dingley, Apr 26, 2006
    #5
  6. Bruce Grubb

    Bruce Grubb Guest

    In article <>,
    "Andy Dingley" <> wrote:

    > Bruce Grubb wrote:
    >
    > > YOu think this is a laugh riot go read the excuses VPenman gave for his
    > > insanely poor HTML in the "CR2 Expansion Bug/Feature" thread

    >
    > I did. You came out of that sufficiently badly to warrant an immediate
    > <plonk>.


    How so? VPenman was the one making one idiotic statement after another.

    >
    > > That guy's ignorance was astounding and his efforts to explain it were
    > > pathetic.

    >
    > No, he was merely ignorant (when was HTML a required skill for games
    > developers who'd bought a duff tool and had already expressed interest
    > in fixing the problem?). However he showed every sign of remedying
    > this.


    Remedying it? Give me a freaking break. He defended his HTML on crack with
    one stupid piece of idiocy after another.


    > You looked like a spoiled teenager who was using a trivial situation to
    > excuse a pointless flamewar.


    NO I showed that VPenman and his happy crew had NO CLUE about HTML and
    every claim he made was WRONG. And he was hired by TSR because he and his
    company 'knew' HTML. Showing them to be a bunch of Bonzos is not acting
    like a spoiled teenager. Continuing to defend the mistakes after showing
    they know about as much about writing HTML as flying a rocket ship to Mars
    is.
    Bruce Grubb, Apr 26, 2006
    #6
  7. Bruce Grubb

    Bruce Grubb Guest

    In article <>,
    "Andy Dingley" <> wrote:

    > Bruce Grubb wrote:
    >
    > > YOu think this is a laugh riot go read the excuses VPenman gave for his
    > > insanely poor HTML in the "CR2 Expansion Bug/Feature" thread

    >
    > I did. You came out of that sufficiently badly to warrant an immediate
    > <plonk>.
    >
    > > That guy's ignorance was astounding and his efforts to explain it were
    > > pathetic.

    >
    > No, he was merely ignorant (when was HTML a required skill for games
    > developers who'd bought a duff tool and had already expressed interest
    > in fixing the problem?). However he showed every sign of remedying
    > this.


    No he didn't. He just defended the idiocy as Bryan J. Maloney and I basicly
    showed him to be not only ignorant but outright stupid. Like claiming HTML
    is an "internet standard" which it was not and is not.

    I should point out this was one example of how TSR was handling things at
    the time <http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/539/539628p4.html> and this was
    one of the things WotC got stuck with when they bought TSR in 1997.

    Oh I just noticed something about the CR2 Expansion CD-ROM - its
    copyrighted TSR 1999. Mind explaining THAT when TSR didn't exist and was
    part of the WotC in 1999?
    Bruce Grubb, Apr 26, 2006
    #7
  8. Bruce Grubb

    Bruce Grubb Guest

    In article <>,
    Dave Hinz <> wrote:

    > On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:51:31 +1000, dorayme <>
    > wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > Bruce Grubb <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> HTML is NOT a page layout format people. The moment you talk about
    > >> 'looks'
    > >> you are trying to force it into that role and give yourself headaches.

    >
    > > You are just being silly now. "The moment you talk about
    > > 'looks'..." ! You need to step back from jumping to conclusions
    > > so easily.

    >
    > Wow. You're actually for real, aren't you. It's like this caracature
    > of someone without the slightest clue or background, it's so _perfect_.


    I agree. Also the web is slowly moving from HTML 4.0.1 to XHTML 1.0 which
    shoots the whole IE testing idea down. Stuff that HTML 4.0.1 allowed is a
    major no no with XHTML 1.0 as they have to be XML conforming. This alone
    shows a lot of messing around with the format because now EVERY XML
    compliant program in EVERY version must have the same bug as IE for it to
    work.

    Since some Microsoft program like Excel 2003 support XML how likely is that
    going to happen? About the same chances as Apple buying up Microsoft (ie
    slim to none).
    Bruce Grubb, Apr 26, 2006
    #8
  9. Bruce Grubb

    Andy Dingley Guest

    Bruce Grubb wrote:

    > I agree. Also the web is slowly moving from HTML 4.0.1 to XHTML 1.0 which
    > shoots the whole IE testing idea down.


    Ok, that's pretty clueless. How does HTML / XHTML have an effect on the
    relative "usefulness" of IE, which is by and large a question of IE's
    broken CSS rendering?

    XHTML still means Appendix C, pretty much any browser you use. That in
    itself isn't a specific criticism of IE or its competition.

    > Stuff that HTML 4.0.1 allowed is a
    > major no no with XHTML 1.0 as they have to be XML conforming.


    Other than the simple low-level question of XML well-formedness, just
    what stuff? XHTML 1.0 was just a transcoding from parsing models, not a
    change of the underlying spec.

    > This alone
    > shows a lot of messing around with the format because now EVERY XML
    > compliant program in EVERY version must have the same bug as IE for it to
    > work.


    I have absolutely no idea what you mean here. What "IE bugs" have
    relevance for "XML compliant programs" ?


    > Since some Microsoft program like Excel 2003 support XML


    My toaster "supports electricity" in much the same way that Excel
    supports XML. It doesn't mean that I can web author in Excel though,
    or that I can use my toaster as a battery charger.
    Andy Dingley, Apr 27, 2006
    #9
  10. Bruce Grubb

    Bruce Grubb Guest

    In article <>,
    "Andy Dingley" <> wrote:

    > Bruce Grubb wrote:
    >
    > > I agree. Also the web is slowly moving from HTML 4.0.1 to XHTML 1.0 which
    > > shoots the whole IE testing idea down.

    >
    > Ok, that's pretty clueless. How does HTML / XHTML have an effect on the
    > relative "usefulness" of IE, which is by and large a question of IE's
    > broken CSS rendering?


    Carefull as the last version of IE for the Mac had pretty good CSS
    rendering. Just because the Windows team programmed with its toes does not
    mean through throw out the standard.
    Bruce Grubb, Apr 28, 2006
    #10
  11. Bruce Grubb

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Bruce Grubb <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > "Andy Dingley" <> wrote:
    >
    > > Bruce Grubb wrote:
    > >
    > > > I agree. Also the web is slowly moving from HTML 4.0.1 to XHTML 1.0 which
    > > > shoots the whole IE testing idea down.

    > >
    > > Ok, that's pretty clueless. How does HTML / XHTML have an effect on the
    > > relative "usefulness" of IE, which is by and large a question of IE's
    > > broken CSS rendering?

    >
    > Carefull as the last version of IE for the Mac had pretty good CSS
    > rendering. Just because the Windows team programmed with its toes does not
    > mean through throw out the standard.


    Please stop! I beg you! You will give Mac users a bad name. You
    are on alt.html and you are supposed to show a bit of interest in
    cross-browser standards. Pretend at least already. There is only
    one thing left to say, as Helen Hunt said to Jack Nicholson in As
    Good As It Gets:

    Try not to be you for a moment.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Apr 28, 2006
    #11
  12. Bruce Grubb

    Andy Dingley Guest

    Bruce Grubb wrote:

    > Carefull as the last version of IE for the Mac had pretty good CSS
    > rendering.


    Like hell it did. It attempted better rendering than other "v5"
    generation browsers did at the time. That was a _long_ time ago though,
    and everything else (even IE) has caught up since.

    It was also buggy as anything, particularly around CSS. You _could_
    make it work, but there were no end of gotchas were it would render one
    valid example perfectly but fail (and badly) on another perfectly valid
    example, just because of a permissable variation in the inclusion of
    whitespace.

    This was a browser that was capable, but it certainly wasn't robust (or
    fit for use as a general web-browsing tool - far too many sites killed
    it dead).
    Andy Dingley, Apr 28, 2006
    #12
  13. Bruce Grubb

    Dave Hinz Guest

    On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:23:46 +1000, dorayme <> wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Bruce Grubb <> wrote:
    >
    >> Carefull as the last version of IE for the Mac had pretty good CSS
    >> rendering. Just because the Windows team programmed with its toes does not
    >> mean through throw out the standard.

    >
    > Please stop! I beg you! You will give Mac users a bad name.


    How in the world is pointing out that implementations differ, giving
    _anyone_ a bad name? News flash; he's right, _and_, he couldn't "give
    Mac users a bad name" regardless of what he says or who he is.

    > You
    > are on alt.html and you are supposed to show a bit of interest in
    > cross-browser standards. Pretend at least already.


    Is that actually in the charter for alt.html? Can you provide a link so
    I can read what you're claiming, because I'm not seeing it.

    > There is only
    > one thing left to say, as Helen Hunt said to Jack Nicholson in As
    > Good As It Gets: > > Try not to be you for a moment.



    Yes yes, that's very nice, did you have anything to add on the topic of
    css rendering, or are you just talking to hear your own voice?
    Dave Hinz, Apr 28, 2006
    #13
  14. Bruce Grubb

    Bruce Grubb Guest

    In article
    <>,
    dorayme <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Bruce Grubb <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <>,
    > > "Andy Dingley" <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > Bruce Grubb wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > I agree. Also the web is slowly moving from HTML 4.0.1 to XHTML 1.0
    > > > > which
    > > > > shoots the whole IE testing idea down.
    > > >
    > > > Ok, that's pretty clueless. How does HTML / XHTML have an effect on the
    > > > relative "usefulness" of IE, which is by and large a question of IE's
    > > > broken CSS rendering?

    > >
    > > Carefull as the last version of IE for the Mac had pretty good CSS
    > > rendering. Just because the Windows team programmed with its toes does not
    > > mean through throw out the standard.

    >
    > Please stop! I beg you! You will give Mac users a bad name. You
    > are on alt.html and you are supposed to show a bit of interest in
    > cross-browser standards.


    We are in comp.sys.mac.apps AND alt.html oh wise one. The fact of the
    matter is IE for MacOS does NOT have the same bugs as what exists on
    WIndows. Heck even the bugs between windows versions are not the same.
    Bruce Grubb, Apr 28, 2006
    #14
  15. On Fri, 28 Apr 2006, Bruce Grubb wrote:

    > The fact of the matter is IE for MacOS does NOT have the same bugs
    > as what exists on WIndows.


    Of course not - they are completely different code-bases, developed by
    different teams, with apparently quite different intentions. The Mac
    implementation did at least *try* to implement the then-available
    interworking specifications.
    Alan J. Flavell, Apr 28, 2006
    #15
  16. Bruce Grubb

    Toby Inkster Guest

    Bruce Grubb wrote:

    > The fact of the matter is IE for MacOS does NOT have the same bugs as
    > what exists on WIndows.


    It has a completely different set of bugs. :-(

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
    Toby Inkster, Apr 28, 2006
    #16
  17. Bruce Grubb

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <>,
    "Andy Dingley <>"
    <> wrote:

    > This was a browser that was capable, but it certainly wasn't robust (or
    > fit for use as a general web-browsing tool - far too many sites killed
    > it dead).


    Well, I used it for years on OS 9 and it was very robust, more so
    than any other browser I had. Or I was just lucky? Hey, if I am
    so lucky, how come I got a bit of tree jammed up my thumb the
    other day? Hospital emergency, minor op to cut the nail off: look
    what damned happened to my finger the other day, chain-sawing a
    tree, before you just make these careless remarks:

    <http://www.dorayme.150m.com/pics/myPostOpThumb.jpg>

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Apr 29, 2006
    #17
  18. Bruce Grubb

    Neredbojias Guest

    To further the education of mankind, dorayme
    <> vouchsafed:

    >> This was a browser that was capable, but it certainly wasn't robust (or
    >> fit for use as a general web-browsing tool - far too many sites killed
    >> it dead).

    >
    > Well, I used it for years on OS 9 and it was very robust, more so
    > than any other browser I had. Or I was just lucky? Hey, if I am
    > so lucky, how come I got a bit of tree jammed up my thumb the
    > other day? Hospital emergency, minor op to cut the nail off: look
    > what damned happened to my finger the other day, chain-sawing a
    > tree, before you just make these careless remarks:
    >
    > <http://www.dorayme.150m.com/pics/myPostOpThumb.jpg>


    Can you tell me how I might acquire one of them little white coat things
    for my own private use? Where I live, it gets mighty darn cold in certain
    parts!

    --
    Neredbojias
    Infinity has its limits.
    Neredbojias, Apr 29, 2006
    #18
  19. Bruce Grubb

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Dave Hinz <> wrote:

    > On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:23:46 +1000, dorayme <>
    > wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > Bruce Grubb <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Carefull as the last version of IE for the Mac had pretty good CSS
    > >> rendering. Just because the Windows team programmed with its toes does
    > >> not
    > >> mean through throw out the standard.

    > >
    > > Please stop! I beg you! You will give Mac users a bad name.

    >
    > How in the world is pointing out that implementations differ, giving
    > _anyone_ a bad name? News flash; he's right, _and_, he couldn't "give
    > Mac users a bad name" regardless of what he says or who he is.
    >


    You need to go deeper into the thread to see this. IE Mac is
    basically irrelevant to the trouble with IE. The whole thing
    started with Bruce Grubb saying silly things about not needing to
    worry about making special provisions for IE. IE means IE Win.
    Understand this! It is in the context of ensuring that a very
    great many people do not get mangled versions of websites. So
    when I see a Mac fellow idiotically going on about something that
    a very very small % of folk use (especially now) in the present
    context, I react. Are you following this at all? Perhaps it is
    unworthy of you to be supporting Bruce Grubb so much... I sense
    that you are saveable.


    > > You
    > > are on alt.html and you are supposed to show a bit of interest in
    > > cross-browser standards. Pretend at least already.

    >
    > Is that actually in the charter for alt.html? Can you provide a link so
    > I can read what you're claiming, because I'm not seeing it.
    >


    Please don't be silly. I have that role around here. Piss off.


    > > There is only
    > > one thing left to say, as Helen Hunt said to Jack Nicholson in As
    > > Good As It Gets: > > Try not to be you for a moment.

    >
    >
    > Yes yes, that's very nice, did you have anything to add on the topic of
    > css rendering, or are you just talking to hear your own voice?


    I want that you and Bruce should at least get to see the basic
    rationality of a website developer doing more than resting on his
    or her laurels because they have followed the W3C standards. Once
    you have appreciated this, I will have nothing to add.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Apr 29, 2006
    #19
  20. "dorayme" <> skrev i meddelandet
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > Dave Hinz <> wrote:
    > > Yes yes, that's very nice, did you have anything to add on the topic of
    > > css rendering, or are you just talking to hear your own voice?



    Perhaps she has a very nice voice.....
    --
    Luigi Donatello Asero
    https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/s...na/semesterbostader-nara-adriatiska-havet.php
    今天二零零六年四月二åä¹æ—¥
    星期五六
    Luigi Donatello Asero, Apr 29, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. craig dicker
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    344
    Peter Rilling
    Jul 10, 2005
  2. Sammy
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,182
    Richard Tobin
    May 6, 2005
  3. John Dalberg
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    769
  4. Guy
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    176
    Dr John Stockton
    Dec 5, 2003
  5. TheBelangerFamily
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    109
    TheBelangerFamily
    Mar 21, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page