I like how wikipedia presents its contents in a usable way on IE5. This is awesome and most likely a part of their mission to make knowledge as accessible as possible . I have seen old, low-end donated PCs that are rife in elementary education in rural India and I'm sure in other developing countries as well. I am sure that these machines will be able to render wikipedia just fine!
I think it's more likely that they simply haven't felt the need to update their styling much in the past decade or so. And last I checked the home page uses tables for layout, so it would make sense that it works on IE5, since that's what everyone did back then.
Popular Websites Displayed in IE 5
61–70 of 120 posts
Re: Popular Websites Displayed in IE 5
#62I think it's doing Wikipedia a disservice to say that it looks good because it's "minimalist" or "static content". There has obviously been a lot of work put into making Wikipedia work well in every browser.
Re: Popular Websites Displayed in IE 5
#63For what it's worth, Google is still usable in lynx .
Re: Popular Websites Displayed in IE 5
#64Look way more decent than I thought, google is apparently the only one really supporting ie5 as their interface seems absolutely unchanged. Also noticed the irony of microsoft.com being the worst, maybe it shows that the company wants to move forward, maybe it's just lazyness/rationalisation. Also it's kind of abvious that amazon works well, they don't want to lose potentials customers (maybe same for google)
I doubt Google "supports" ie5, their home page is just ultra-stripped down. Before they added that toolbar at the top, it was a text box and three or four links. Not much to mess up.
Re: Popular Websites Displayed in IE 5
#65You've got to appreciate the irony of microsoft.com being among the worst of the ten (if not the very worst) to render.
And yet you still have a "command prompt" so that you can run your DOS programs as well as "compatibility mode" so that older applications can run on the post-XP systems.
Re: Popular Websites Displayed in IE 5
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Command prompt", i.e. terminal, is what makes you toy a computer. If you don't have one, it's still a toy. MS did a lot to turn their lame "DOS command prompt" into a command line terminal; not enough, but a lot. So no, "command prompt" has nothing to do with DOS. You can run DOS programs from the GUI as well.
> MS did a lot to turn their lame "DOS command prompt" into a command line terminal; not enough, but a lot. Then they made PowerShell, which removes any complaints one might have!
Re: Popular Websites Displayed in IE 5
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your computer in microwave is not a computer. You can't run custom programs on it, it's not turing complete for you in this sense. To run custom programs on it, you'll need to add a terminal to it or succumb to the sin of batch processing. Colossus wasn't actually turing complete. It wasn't a computer except in historic sense.
You can use a GUI-based programming system. An example might be Devpac (68000 assembly language editor/assembler/debugger) on the Atari ST. (You could get command shells for the ST, because it was a programmable computer, so of course you could make it do pretty much whatever you wanted if you were willing to put the effort in. But the system didn't ship with a command line interface and (as I recall...) most of the…
"Immediate mode" counts.
Re: Popular Websites Displayed in IE 5
#68And for my next magic trick, popular modern video games rendered in 256 bit color.
Doom 3 on a VooDoo 2 SLI setup: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUVXAl0dgYY
Re: Popular Websites Displayed in IE 5
#69Re: Popular Websites Displayed in IE 5
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is because of security issues with old code that probably mostly dates back to Office 97 or older. How often do you receive Word 6.0 documents via email nowadays?
How one receieves such documents is irrelevant. Some years ago a relative passed away, leaving hundreds of such documents on her antique computer. Luckily there was free software available that would still allow us to take part of her legacy. But of course, we could just as well have burnt her computer to ashes, as something so ancient must obviously be a security issue.