121–130 of 217 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
fair.
So you just agreed the premise of your whole argument above is not valid. Just saying.
The comments about the developer tools and the wonky VM setup still stand.
Also, they say money is fungible, but it rubs me the wrong way to be paying MS for the privilege of testing my site on their browser.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IE's moving to a similar "rapid release" schedule with other browsers. Microsoft has played many sneaky pete tricks in the browser wars (such as supporting a CSS standard that couldn't be correctly implemented in Netscape's codebase) but you can't blame their release schedule entirely on that -- Windows users tend to be a conservative lot who are terrified that Microsoft will push something that will break their chea…
conservative lot who are terrified that Microsoft will push something that will break their cheap-ass intranet Due to...everybody say it with me...lack of standards support.
Mozilla has had similar issues with intranets (though not to as large an extent, due to their smaller install base), and you can't exactly blame _that_ on lack of standards support. What you _can_ blame it on is things like people writing intranet apps that depend on the user flipping some hidden pref in the browser to relax a security policy and then breaking when that pref is later removed, say.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no double standard. If any single browser had the marketshare that IE had in its heyday, it would be irresponsible and anticompetitive for them to implement nonstandard features. But marketshare is spread much more evenly among the players today, so it's pretty much understood that a production site cannot rely on a browser-specific feature. Hell, most people don't even rely on modern standard features becau…
You might have a fair point regarding things like ActiveX which only work on Microsoft's own platform and serve to further lock-in to Windows. However, as was pointed out above, XMLHttpRequest is one such nonstandard feature that Microsoft introduced. How is that feature irresponsible and anticompetitive?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems to me there has, for a long time, been a double standard when MS is involved. The response I often see is: Something non-standard but cool in IE? "Screw MS, they're trying to embrace and extend the web!" Something non-standard but cool in another browser? "I don't understand why people are complaining! Good ideas like these eventually become standards, and this is how innovation happens!"
There is no double standard. If any single browser had the marketshare that IE had in its heyday, it would be irresponsible and anticompetitive for them to implement nonstandard features. But marketshare is spread much more evenly among the players today, so it's pretty much understood that a production site cannot rely on a browser-specific feature. Hell, most people don't even rely on modern standard features becau…
I'm not saying non-standard features are always a good idea...but is everyone always waited around for standards bodies to come up with new things, we'd never see any new features.
I dont see the point in sacrificing my programmer happiness.
IE9 may have caught up on some things, but there are a lot of things it doesn't do, that Safari/Chrome and Firefox (as well as Opera in most cases) do do. So even if it might not be quite as hard now to get it to layout properly (it still is not the same as Chrome/Safari/Firefox/Opera, really, things just don't behave the same unless you train yourself to avoid things that IE9 doesn't like), there are lots of other r…
Oh god, we might as well start asking why FF didn't support ellipse for what seems like decades. Everyone has different release schedules. IE is a lot more conservative because they support enterprise who are mighty touchy. Grow The Fuck Up Cry Baby. I'm all for IE6 and IE7 whining, they suck. I'm even for IE8 and the entire stop at XP whining. Damn MS for that. But you just sound like a total privileged prat who doe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might have a fair point regarding things like ActiveX which only work on Microsoft's own platform and serve to further lock-in to Windows. However, as was pointed out above, XMLHttpRequest is one such nonstandard feature that Microsoft introduced. How is that feature irresponsible and anticompetitive?
The feature is anticompetitive because it was part of a large-scale and well-documented effort within the company to coopt and/or destroy technologies not controlled by themselves. A handful of innovations (which would have happened anyway) that happened along the way do not justify that kind of behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems unnecessary to straight up block potential customers from signing up because of their browser. Encourage them to get the full experience using another browser might be a better idea.
Suppose you are the proprietor of a physical retail business. You're the only employee, so on Sundays you close the shop because otherwise you'd be short-staffed. Do you listen to potential customers who complain that you're not open on Sundays by (a) offering them a degraded experience by letting them shop while you aren't there, (b) hire additional staff to support the shop on Sundays, or (c) tell them to come back…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
fair.
So you just agreed the premise of your whole argument above is not valid. Just saying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Non standard features like... XMLHttpRequest? The entire AJAX industry, they invented. What were you saying again?
If the features hadn't been useful, it wouldn't have worked. Are you seriously going to argue that their strategy – their explicit strategy – was not incredibly harmful to innovation and competition? Also saying they "invented" XMLHttpRequest is a stretch. If I make a browser with a nonstandard rot-13 function, did I "invent" JSRot13?