who uses virtual pc for testing webpages

Discussion in 'HTML' started by josph, Jan 27, 2004.

  1. josph

    josph Guest

    Just wondering if anyone uses Virtual PC for testing different browsers.

    Is is a good idea for people who can't work with, or don't want to work with
    multiple real PCs ?
     
    josph, Jan 27, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. josph

    rf Guest

    "josph" < !> wrote in message
    news:k4tRb.354$...
    > Just wondering if anyone uses Virtual PC for testing different browsers.
    >
    > Is is a good idea for people who can't work with, or don't want to work

    with
    > multiple real PCs ?


    What's wrong with multiple browsers on the same physical PC?

    Cheers
    Richard.
     
    rf, Jan 27, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. josph

    josph Guest

    "rf" <> wrote in message
    news:agtRb.30674$...
    >
    > "josph" < !> wrote in message
    > news:k4tRb.354$...
    > > Just wondering if anyone uses Virtual PC for testing different browsers.
    > >
    > > Is is a good idea for people who can't work with, or don't want to work

    > with
    > > multiple real PCs ?

    >
    > What's wrong with multiple browsers on the same physical PC?
    >
    > Cheers
    > Richard.
    >
    >


    I'm working on a laptop with a 12.1 screen. I don't want to change video
    modes, my laptop video card and screen don't allow much changes. Also
    perhaps VPC will allow me to see view my pages in a higher resolution than
    my laptop is capable of.

    *Change colour depth*
    Not sure if this would work.

    *Change screen resoloution*
    Need to test the range from 800 x 600 upwards my laptop only works well with
    one resolution.

    *Testing linux browsers*

    *Different versions of IE*
    Perhaps there is a way of installing different versions of IE on the same XP
    install, but i'm not sure if i want to interfere or hack my installation of
    XP
     
    josph, Jan 27, 2004
    #3
  4. josph

    Nico Schuyt Guest

    Nico Schuyt, Jan 27, 2004
    #4
  5. josph

    josph Guest

    "Nico Schuyt" <> wrote in message
    news:4016693e$0$521$...
    > josph wrote:
    > > Perhaps there is a way of installing different versions of IE on the
    > > same XP install, but i'm not sure if i want to interfere or hack my
    > > installation of XP

    >
    > Just what you need:
    > http://www.insert-title.com/web_design/?page=articles/dev/multi_IE
    > Works perfectly for me (IE4, IE5, IE55 and IE6 on XP)
    > Nico
    >
    >


    Thanks ! The article has a link to http://browsers.evolt.org/ where I can
    download different browser versions. (that was going to be my next question)

    I still think i can find good use for my copy of Virtual PC. I'm not sure I
    want to trust my XP with the above mentioned hack - I will install it on a
    Virtual PC. Also being able to test Linux browsers on V. PC is nice as well.

    I still have the problem off wanting to test different screen resolutions,
    V. PC may help. To clarify, I just want to see how my web designs will look
    at a higher or lower resolution without changing my laptops display mode.

    Will the fonts sizes look good, will there be a lot of white space, will the
    user have to scroll horizontally, will some of the elements be squashed
    together ???
     
    josph, Jan 27, 2004
    #5
  6. josph

    Nico Schuyt Guest

    josph wrote:
    > I still have the problem off wanting to test different screen
    > resolutions, V. PC may help. To clarify, I just want to see how my
    > web designs will look at a higher or lower resolution without
    > changing my laptops display mode.
    >
    > Will the fonts sizes look good, will there be a lot of white space,
    > will the user have to scroll horizontally, will some of the elements
    > be squashed together ???


    Better: Don't design for a special window size or screen resolution.
    Read: http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign
    Good luck!
    Nico
     
    Nico Schuyt, Jan 27, 2004
    #6
  7. josph

    josph Guest

    "Nico Schuyt" <> wrote in message
    news:40167401$0$89906$...
    > josph wrote:
    > > I still have the problem off wanting to test different screen
    > > resolutions, V. PC may help. To clarify, I just want to see how my
    > > web designs will look at a higher or lower resolution without
    > > changing my laptops display mode.
    > >
    > > Will the fonts sizes look good, will there be a lot of white space,
    > > will the user have to scroll horizontally, will some of the elements
    > > be squashed together ???

    >
    > Better: Don't design for a special window size or screen resolution.
    > Read: http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign
    > Good luck!
    > Nico
    >



    I *will* be aiming for a range of screen resolutions, 800x600 upwards. I
    would like to be easily able to test as much of that range as possible.
     
    josph, Jan 27, 2004
    #7
  8. Quoth the raven named josph:

    > "Nico Schuyt" <> wrote in message
    > news:40167401$0$89906$...
    >
    >>josph wrote:
    >>
    >>>I still have the problem off wanting to test different screen
    >>>resolutions, V. PC may help. To clarify, I just want to see how my
    >>>web designs will look at a higher or lower resolution without
    >>>changing my laptops display mode.
    >>>
    >>>Will the fonts sizes look good, will there be a lot of white space,
    >>>will the user have to scroll horizontally, will some of the elements
    >>>be squashed together ???

    >>
    >>Better: Don't design for a special window size or screen resolution.
    >>Read: http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign
    >>Good luck!
    >>Nico

    >
    > I *will* be aiming for a range of screen resolutions, 800x600 upwards. I
    > would like to be easily able to test as much of that range as possible.


    Stop thinking "screen resolution." It is unimportant. Think "browser
    window size" instead. My browser window is seldom wider than 800px,
    and frequently smaller, but my monitor is quite larger than that.

    Unless you are displaying large photographs, your pages should flow
    and resize themselves no matter what the size of the visitor's browser
    window.

    --
    -bts
    -This space intentionally left blank.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jan 27, 2004
    #8
  9. > Will the fonts sizes look good, will there be a lot of white space, will
    the
    > user have to scroll horizontally, will some of the elements be squashed
    > together ???


    Fixed vs Fluid design debate aside...

    I like using VPC to test, as it gives me a clean OS testbed to use.
    Standard font installs, easy to change resolution and color depth,
    alternate operating system options, and so on. VPC offers a nice layer
    where I can mess with settings without interfering with my own work
    environment.

    Though for a quick preview of your site on many many browsers the very
    handy http://www.browsercam.com does the trick (and offers a free trial).

    Ethan
    --
    Datarealm Internet Services, Inc.
    Shared Hosting: http://www.serve.com
    Dedicated Hosting: http://www.rackmounted.com
     
    Ethan Schlenker, Jan 28, 2004
    #9
  10. josph

    Bruce Grubb Guest

    In article <k4tRb.354$>,
    "josph" < !> wrote:

    > Just wondering if anyone uses Virtual PC for testing different browsers.
    >
    > Is is a good idea for people who can't work with, or don't want to work with
    > multiple real PCs ?


    Now why on earth would you even want to do this? HTML 4.0.1 is a STANDARD.
    As long as you write to the standard (opposed to exploiting bugs or quirks
    in Netscape and Explorer) you don't NEED to go testing your HTML on
    multiple browsers.

    The best tool to make sure your HMTL is to the standard is to make use of
    the HTML Tidy Library Project <http://tidy.sourceforge.net/>

    The Mac version of HTML Tidy is typical of the project. Not only will the
    program clean up the HTML for you but it will tell you *which* HTML you are
    using.
     
    Bruce Grubb, Jan 29, 2004
    #10
  11. josph

    Mark Parnell Guest

    On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:10:12 -0700, Bruce Grubb <>
    declared in alt.html:
    >
    > Now why on earth would you even want to do this? HTML 4.0.1 is a STANDARD.
    > As long as you write to the standard (opposed to exploiting bugs or quirks
    > in Netscape and Explorer) you don't NEED to go testing your HTML on
    > multiple browsers.


    Unfortunately, due to various bugs and other rendering differences in
    the different browsers, you *do* need to test it in multiple browsers.
    Perhaps not the way it should be, but that's the world we live in.

    --
    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
     
    Mark Parnell, Jan 29, 2004
    #11
  12. josph

    Cameron Guest

    Bruce Grubb wrote:
    > In article <k4tRb.354$>,
    > "josph" < !> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Just wondering if anyone uses Virtual PC for testing different browsers.
    >>
    >>Is is a good idea for people who can't work with, or don't want to work with
    >>multiple real PCs ?

    >
    >
    > Now why on earth would you even want to do this? HTML 4.0.1 is a STANDARD.
    > As long as you write to the standard (opposed to exploiting bugs or quirks
    > in Netscape and Explorer) you don't NEED to go testing your HTML on
    > multiple browsers.
    >
    > The best tool to make sure your HMTL is to the standard is to make use of
    > the HTML Tidy Library Project <http://tidy.sourceforge.net/>
    >
    > The Mac version of HTML Tidy is typical of the project. Not only will the
    > program clean up the HTML for you but it will tell you *which* HTML you are
    > using.


    Not at all true, and hell most people know that you definatly SHOULD
    test on as many browsers as possible, different browsers sometimes have
    little things can can cause the page to display in an odd manner, e.g. I
    have found before that some browsers, if you do...

    <td>
    content
    </td>

    you will get a new line under content, so you have to do

    <td>content</td> with them

    fact remains is that some browsers do have little bugs like this and
    it's the web designers job to better compensate for them without causing
    issues with other browsers.

    ~Cameron
     
    Cameron, Jan 29, 2004
    #12
  13. Bruce Grubb wrote:

    > As long as you write to the standard (opposed to exploiting bugs or quirks
    > in Netscape and Explorer)


    Do you think these two are mutually exclusive? The following page:

    http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/scratch/example

    is 3 lines of validated HTML with no CSS and no Javascript. Simple enough,
    right? But it will instantly crash about 85% of your visitors' browsers.
    Go ahead: visit it in IE 5+ for Windows. Just make sure you've saved any
    work you were doing first.

    Just because your HTML is valid, doesn't mean it will work everywhere.
    Although it means that is *should* work everywhere -- which is a good
    start!

    Conversely it is possible to build an invalid page that works in all/most
    browsers, but you'd need to keep testing it whenever a new browser came
    out, just in case.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
     
    Toby A Inkster, Jan 29, 2004
    #13
  14. josph

    Bruce Grubb Guest

    In article <1f3x0rllgatrc$.8peok6tvsbqc$>,
    Mark Parnell <> wrote:

    > On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:10:12 -0700, Bruce Grubb <>
    > declared in alt.html:
    > >
    > > Now why on earth would you even want to do this? HTML 4.0.1 is a STANDARD.
    > >
    > > As long as you write to the standard (opposed to exploiting bugs or quirks
    > > in Netscape and Explorer) you don't NEED to go testing your HTML on
    > > multiple browsers.

    >
    > Unfortunately, due to various bugs and other rendering differences in
    > the different browsers, you *do* need to test it in multiple browsers.
    > Perhaps not the way it should be, but that's the world we live in.


    This is horsepucky for several reasons.

    1) Bugs rarely if ever effect STANDARD HTML. They are however do allow
    *nonstandard* (ie easily breakable) things to be done. Of coure whent he
    bug is fixed the *nonstandard* HTML displays like crap. Standard HTML the
    other other hand displays EXACTLY the way it did.

    2) rendering is illrelevent.

    The sooner the dimwits that call themselves HTML writers understand HTML is
    NOT nor NEVER will be a page layout format the better it will be for
    everyone else.

    Any modern brower out there is HTML 4.01 complient. Now granted CSS
    support on some of them is not the best in the world but even iCab will do
    most of CSS1 intellegently and ignore the rest.

    I challange someone to show a *valid* (ie W3c complient) online HTML file
    doing something improper on any non beta browser. You can even use the
    Wayback Machine if you so wish.
     
    Bruce Grubb, Jan 30, 2004
    #14
  15. josph

    Bruce Grubb Guest

    In article <>,
    Toby A Inkster <> wrote:

    > Bruce Grubb wrote:
    >
    > > As long as you write to the standard (opposed to exploiting bugs or quirks
    > > in Netscape and Explorer)

    >
    > Do you think these two are mutually exclusive? The following page:
    >
    > http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/scratch/example
    >
    > is 3 lines of validated HTML with no CSS and no Javascript. Simple enough,
    > right? But it will instantly crash about 85% of your visitors' browsers.
    > Go ahead: visit it in IE 5+ for Windows. Just make sure you've saved any
    > work you were doing first.


    This is because the page is trying to do browser detection and hides it as
    a comment so it passes through the W3C validtors. Since HTML is supposed
    to be INDEPENDENT of what complient browser you use any browser detection
    code is an automatic No-no. Come back when you have a REAL example (ie NO
    browers dectention commands what so ever).
     
    Bruce Grubb, Jan 30, 2004
    #15
  16. josph

    Cameron Guest

    Bruce Grubb wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Toby A Inkster <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Bruce Grubb wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>As long as you write to the standard (opposed to exploiting bugs or quirks
    >>>in Netscape and Explorer)

    >>
    >>Do you think these two are mutually exclusive? The following page:
    >>
    >> http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/scratch/example
    >>
    >>is 3 lines of validated HTML with no CSS and no Javascript. Simple enough,
    >>right? But it will instantly crash about 85% of your visitors' browsers.
    >>Go ahead: visit it in IE 5+ for Windows. Just make sure you've saved any
    >>work you were doing first.

    >
    >
    > This is because the page is trying to do browser detection and hides it as
    > a comment so it passes through the W3C validtors. Since HTML is supposed
    > to be INDEPENDENT of what complient browser you use any browser detection
    > code is an automatic No-no. Come back when you have a REAL example (ie NO
    > browers dectention commands what so ever).


    Come back when you know how to do web dev, and that means knowing that
    web pages must be tested in as many browsers as possible, try writing a
    page wanting it to be compatable with lynx and not testing it in lynx,
    that is presuming you even know what lynx is.

    ~Cameron
     
    Cameron, Jan 30, 2004
    #16
  17. josph

    Bruce Grubb Guest

    In article <bva2el$gnu$>, Cameron <>
    wrote:

    > Bruce Grubb wrote:
    > > In article <k4tRb.354$>,
    > > "josph" < !> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>Just wondering if anyone uses Virtual PC for testing different browsers.
    > >>
    > >>Is is a good idea for people who can't work with, or don't want to work
    > >>with
    > >>multiple real PCs ?

    > >
    > >
    > > Now why on earth would you even want to do this? HTML 4.0.1 is a STANDARD.
    > >
    > > As long as you write to the standard (opposed to exploiting bugs or quirks
    > > in Netscape and Explorer) you don't NEED to go testing your HTML on
    > > multiple browsers.
    > >
    > > The best tool to make sure your HMTL is to the standard is to make use of
    > > the HTML Tidy Library Project <http://tidy.sourceforge.net/>
    > >
    > > The Mac version of HTML Tidy is typical of the project. Not only will the
    > > program clean up the HTML for you but it will tell you *which* HTML you are
    > > using.

    >
    > Not at all true, and hell most people know that you definatly SHOULD
    > test on as many browsers as possible, different browsers sometimes have
    > little things can can cause the page to display in an odd manner, e.g. I
    > have found before that some browsers, if you do...
    >
    > <td>
    > content
    > </td>
    >
    > you will get a new line under content, so you have to do
    >
    > <td>content</td> with them
    >
    > fact remains is that some browsers do have little bugs like this and
    > it's the web designers job to better compensate for them without causing
    > issues with other browsers.


    This a page layout issue which HTML was NEVER designed to address. Besides
    some versions of HTML Tidy do NOT like breaking tags like this. For
    example, Balthisar Tidy is unbelievably tempermental about this sort of
    thing and is insanly sensative to 'improper' characters to the point you
    wonder why it generates the errors it does. If it can validate on
    Balthisar Tidy it will validate on nearly anything else.
     
    Bruce Grubb, Jan 30, 2004
    #17
  18. josph

    Bruce Grubb Guest

    In article <bvd474$lg9$>, Cameron <>
    wrote:

    > Bruce Grubb wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > Toby A Inkster <> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>Bruce Grubb wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>As long as you write to the standard (opposed to exploiting bugs or quirks
    > >>>in Netscape and Explorer)
    > >>
    > >>Do you think these two are mutually exclusive? The following page:
    > >>
    > >> http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/scratch/example
    > >>
    > >>is 3 lines of validated HTML with no CSS and no Javascript. Simple enough,
    > >>right? But it will instantly crash about 85% of your visitors' browsers.
    > >>Go ahead: visit it in IE 5+ for Windows. Just make sure you've saved any
    > >>work you were doing first.

    > >
    > >
    > > This is because the page is trying to do browser detection and hides it as
    > > a comment so it passes through the W3C validtors. Since HTML is supposed
    > > to be INDEPENDENT of what complient browser you use any browser detection
    > > code is an automatic No-no. Come back when you have a REAL example (ie NO
    > > browers dectention commands what so ever).

    >
    > Come back when you know how to do web dev, and that means knowing that
    > web pages must be tested in as many browsers as possible, try writing a
    > page wanting it to be compatable with lynx and not testing it in lynx,
    > that is presuming you even know what lynx is.


    HELLO! HMTL is PLATFORM INDEPENDENT. That means that HTML written to a
    certain spec (2.0, 3.2 4.01) will work fine on a browser that supports that
    spec (back compatablity for a certain spec is a given).

    One of the key things to following the 4.01 spec is the use of the Alt tag
    something that is nearly manditory if you are dealing with someone using
    Lynx. Nevermind that http://www.html4.com/ goes into long detail about
    most problems are do to people NOT following the specs but writing to a
    collection of browers. So write to the blasted spec.
     
    Bruce Grubb, Jan 30, 2004
    #18
  19. Bruce Grubb wrote:

    > HELLO! HMTL is PLATFORM INDEPENDENT. That means that HTML written to a
    > certain spec (2.0, 3.2 4.01) will work fine on a browser that supports that
    > spec (back compatablity for a certain spec is a given).


    You seem to be assuming that browsers perfectly support the specs. They
    don't.

    --
    Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
    Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132
     
    Toby A Inkster, Jan 30, 2004
    #19
  20. Bruce Grubb wrote:
    > ...
    > One of the key things to following the 4.01 spec is the use of the
    > Alt tag ...


    ?? fatigue?

    --
    William Tasso
     
    William Tasso, Jan 30, 2004
    #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. Bruno Alexandre

    How to build WebPages?

    Bruno Alexandre, Jan 23, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    370
    Mark Fitzpatrick
    Jan 23, 2004
  2. =?Utf-8?B?cmVpa3M=?=

    webpages

    =?Utf-8?B?cmVpa3M=?=, Jan 31, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    636
    Munsifali Rashid
    Jan 31, 2004
  3. chris

    Dynamic Webpages

    chris, Apr 1, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    354
    Steven Cheng[MSFT]
    Apr 2, 2004
  4. =?Utf-8?B?UHJhbmF2?=

    Export WebPages with a Chart to Excel

    =?Utf-8?B?UHJhbmF2?=, Apr 7, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,535
    =?Utf-8?B?UHJhbmF2?=
    Apr 7, 2004
  5. flashadow
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    149
Loading...

Share This Page