In 2009?
T i m
I just had need to go on the HP web site re a friends laptop. As you
click on the online chat thing it said ...
"Note to Mac customers: The HP Chat application does not support Mac
customers. You can still access a support technician via e-mail."
Why would it not support Mac customers? Do they mean " ... if using
Safari" or "it didn't used to but does now and we haven't upgraded
the message" or what.
I'm a Mac customer and it supported m .. ah. ;-)
Cheers, T i m
Fred McKenzie
T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
> Why would it not support Mac customers? Do they mean " ... if using
> Safari" or "it didn't used to but does now and we haven't upgraded
> the message" or what.
Tim-
I found a web site that came up as a blank screen when accessed from
Safari, but worked with FireFox. The local Apple dealer pointed out
that some web sites can query your browser to see what it is, and refuse
to work if yours is not on their "approved" list. All the web designer
has to do, is add Safari to the list and it would work.
Then the Dealer pointed out that Safari has the ability to report itself
as one of several browsers. Go to Safari Preferences, click on
Advanced, and check "Show Develop menu in menu bar". The new menu
appears, and has User Agent options for additional browsers.
If you are already at the problem web site, it is necessary to Reload
the current page with the different User Agent selected. In my problem
case, either FireFox or Internet Explorer worked.
Fred
T i m
wrote:
Thanks for that. I've saved it in a file in case I come across this
later (I wasn't using Safari at the time but IE so didn't have a
problem connecting anyway). My preferred browser is Firefox though.
So you are saying it's just a browser issue though (or was).
If it's just that why don't they say that in their warning message? I
mean, if you see a site that says 'IEx or later' then you know that if
you can't connect it's likely to be a browser issue but they (HP in
this case) didn't say that?
Cheers, T i m
Rowland McDonnell
> Hi All,
>
> I just had need to go on the HP web site re a friends laptop. As you
> click on the online chat thing it said ...
>
> "Note to Mac customers: The HP Chat application does not support Mac
> customers. You can still access a support technician via e-mail."
>
> Why would it not support Mac customers?
What they probably mean is `This doesn't run on Macs' but a computer
firm can't ever come out and flatly claim that their software is in any
way `not fully everythinged', so they turn it round and talk about
`customers' instead, as if it's better to exclude people as personal
individuals rather than just admit they can't be arsed writing a Mac
version.
[snip]
Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland....@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
Justin C
> Thanks for that. I've saved it in a file in case I come across this
> later (I wasn't using Safari at the time but IE so didn't have a
> problem connecting anyway). My preferred browser is Firefox though.
>
> So you are saying it's just a browser issue though (or was).
It's a developer issue, lazy bastard developer issue... that and a
client not smart enough to demand standards compliant software.
> If it's just that why don't they say that in their warning message? I
> mean, if you see a site that says 'IEx or later' then you know that if
> you can't connect it's likely to be a browser issue but they (HP in
> this case) didn't say that?
There's absolutely no need to write any browser based application that
won't work cross platform.
Justin.
--
Justin C, by the sea.
T i m
<justi...@purestblue.com> wrote:
>In article <rhs5g5d56gpjqvjg7...@4ax.com>, T i m wrote:
>> Thanks for that. I've saved it in a file in case I come across this
>> later (I wasn't using Safari at the time but IE so didn't have a
>> problem connecting anyway). My preferred browser is Firefox though.
>>
>> So you are saying it's just a browser issue though (or was).
>
>It's a developer issue, lazy bastard developer issue... that and a
>client not smart enough to demand standards compliant software.
Ok.
>
>> If it's just that why don't they say that in their warning message? I
>> mean, if you see a site that says 'IEx or later' then you know that if
>> you can't connect it's likely to be a browser issue but they (HP in
>> this case) didn't say that?
>
>There's absolutely no need to write any browser based application that
>won't work cross platform.
I think I understand that M$ did (or does) their own thing
web_server_wise hence why people might be forced into using IE to view
it (properly).
I guess even if you were writing a web site (or chat interface as in
this case) it could (should) also be to an 'open' (is that the right
word) standard?
But don't you still get hardware that forces you to use IE, like some
routers ... they wouldn't be using M$ web servers though would they?
Cheers, T i m
p.s. I've never done much more than play for 10 mins on web design and
got bored. I've built a few servers though. ;-)
Justin C
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:43:46 +0000, Justin C
> <justi...@purestblue.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <rhs5g5d56gpjqvjg7...@4ax.com>, T i m wrote:
>>> Thanks for that. I've saved it in a file in case I come across this
>>> later (I wasn't using Safari at the time but IE so didn't have a
>>> problem connecting anyway). My preferred browser is Firefox though.
>>>
>>> So you are saying it's just a browser issue though (or was).
>>
>>It's a developer issue, lazy bastard developer issue... that and a
>>client not smart enough to demand standards compliant software.
>
> Ok.
>>
>>> If it's just that why don't they say that in their warning message? I
>>> mean, if you see a site that says 'IEx or later' then you know that if
>>> you can't connect it's likely to be a browser issue but they (HP in
>>> this case) didn't say that?
>>
>>There's absolutely no need to write any browser based application that
>>won't work cross platform.
>
> I think I understand that M$ did (or does) their own thing
> web_server_wise hence why people might be forced into using IE to view
> it (properly).
>
> I guess even if you were writing a web site (or chat interface as in
> this case) it could (should) also be to an 'open' (is that the right
> word) standard?
These things are often just javascript, and there's a java-runtime for
all major platforms. No reason for anything to not work.
> But don't you still get hardware that forces you to use IE, like some
> routers ... they wouldn't be using M$ web servers though would they?
I've not seen an ADSL modem, or firewall, or any networking hardware
that has required me to use IE to config it... it would have gone back
had that been the case - if they put that bad a front-end on it, what
have they done to with the bits I can't access?
> Cheers, T i m
>
> p.s. I've never done much more than play for 10 mins on web design and
> got bored. I've built a few servers though. ;-)
T i m
<justi...@purestblue.com> wrote:
>> I guess even if you were writing a web site (or chat interface as in
>> this case) it could (should) also be to an 'open' (is that the right
>> word) standard?
>
>These things are often just javascript, and there's a java-runtime for
>all major platforms. No reason for anything to not work.
Ok.
In case it helps ... when I was about to connect to the HP/Compac chat
module it talked about an icon on the toolbar, <Checks back on IE>
'Compatibility view' (I've never referenced that before on any
browser).
>
>
>> But don't you still get hardware that forces you to use IE, like some
>> routers ... they wouldn't be using M$ web servers though would they?
>
>I've not seen an ADSL modem, or firewall, or any networking hardware
>that has required me to use IE to config it... it would have gone back
>had that been the case - if they put that bad a front-end on it, what
>have they done to with the bits I can't access?
Good question. This was a Ethernet to WiFi extender thing I had to use
to get Dad's eMac on the net. It came with it's own utility (Windows
only of course) but once you knew it's i/p address you were supposed
to be able to re-configure it with 'a browser'. My default browser is
Firefox and I thought I was going mad as what I saw onscreen didn't
match up with what their help suggested should be there. Switching to
IE gave me the missing (WPA) fields.
Cheers, T i m
Ian McCall
> These things are often just javascript, and there's a java-runtime for
> all major platforms. No reason for anything to not work.
Wel...
Devil's advocate for a moment, but Javascript is just the language. The
thing it's manipulating is usually the DOM, and -that's-
browser-specific in many cases.
Writing cross-platform Javascript is an utter pain, and thankfully one
I've not had to do for quite some time. I agree that for anything
standard there's no reason to not write a compatible app, but there's
some things that definitely will be browser-specific. All the extra
WebKit toys, for instance.
Cheers,
Ian
Tim Streater
> In article<o5vdg552pkvbekrkn...@4ax.com>, T i m wrote:
>> I guess even if you were writing a web site (or chat interface as in
>> this case) it could (should) also be to an 'open' (is that the right
>> word) standard?
>
> These things are often just javascript, and there's a java-runtime for
> all major platforms. No reason for anything to not work.
You're not confusing Java and JavaScript are you?
The web app that I'm writing only appears to run with Safari at the
moment. Doubtless once it's finished (or at least at v1.0) I'll try
making it work with FireFox.
I'm not aware of doing anything that's Safari-only but there may be bugs
that Safari is tolerant of.
--
Tim
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"
Bill of Rights 1689
T i m
<timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>On 20/11/2009 23:45, Justin C wrote:
>> In article<o5vdg552pkvbekrkn...@4ax.com>, T i m wrote:
>
>>> I guess even if you were writing a web site (or chat interface as in
>>> this case) it could (should) also be to an 'open' (is that the right
>>> word) standard?
>>
>> These things are often just javascript, and there's a java-runtime for
>> all major platforms. No reason for anything to not work.
>
>You're not confusing Java and JavaScript are you?
>
>The web app that I'm writing only appears to run with Safari at the
>moment. Doubtless once it's finished (or at least at v1.0) I'll try
>making it work with FireFox.
>
>I'm not aware of doing anything that's Safari-only but there may be bugs
>that Safari is tolerant of.
But my question was, why is this sort of thing an issue at all, in
2009, 20+ years after the advent of the everyday computer?
I mean, we shouldn't have lazy developers being able to make some
stuff work and not others ... or some machines not be able to work
with stuff?
It's like Mac / Linux are running LPG and the rest are on petrol (as
far as refilling), not just the odd pump nozzle being a different
shape. Why?
Ok, before you say I know they are 'different' and that's fine, but
I'm not talking about difference I'm talking about compatibility, with
the world. [1]
Cheers, T i m
[1] The HP / Compaq chat portal was the first time I have come across
need to consider this browser 'compatibility mode' thing (I've heard
mention but never looked into). Why (in 2009) doesn't it do what it
needs to do automatically (assuming it doesn't and I'm asking because
I don't understand the mechanics etc).
Ian McCall
> But my question was, why is this sort of thing an issue at all, in
> 2009, 20+ years after the advent of the everyday computer?
>
> I mean, we shouldn't have lazy developers being able to make some
> stuff work and not others ... or some machines not be able to work
> with stuff?
>
> It's like Mac / Linux are running LPG and the rest are on petrol (as
> far as refilling), not just the odd pump nozzle being a different
> shape. Why?
Well...'ish. If everyone's just working to the same template there
won't be any advances. WebKit (Safari/Chrome/a lot of mobile browers)
for instance has some very nice features that IE can't do, Gecko
(Firefox) as well (am struggling to think of something good to say
about IE the other way round, must be -something-...).
> Ok, before you say I know they are 'different' and that's fine, but
> I'm not talking about difference I'm talking about compatibility, with
> the world. [1]
This is key I think. In the case of a web site, which is how this
discussion started, then you should have graceful degradation. That is
to say it's all very well putting on the bells and whistles, but if
your site is targeted for the general audience it should be able to at
least minimally function with the lowest common denominator.
> [1] The HP / Compaq chat portal was the first time I have come across
> need to consider this browser 'compatibility mode' thing (I've heard
> mention but never looked into). Why (in 2009) doesn't it do what it
> needs to do automatically (assuming it doesn't and I'm asking because
> I don't understand the mechanics etc).
It doesn't. Your direct answer in this case is neatly summarised by the
phrase: "The developers of this portal were chimps". There's no good
reason for something so simple not to function, we're just looking at
incompetence.
Cheers,
Ian
Ian McCall
> Your direct answer in this case is neatly summarised by the phrase:
> "The developers of this portal were chimps"
Actually, I'm going to be kind and modify this: "The runners of this
programme were chimps". It may or may not have been the developers,
could have been those setting the requirements or those with a lack of
testing breadth and rigour.
Cheers,
Ian
Jaimie Vandenbergh
To be fair on the developers, *theoretically* they could have been
told that the spec was to write it for IE6 compatibility with no
efforts to be put towards anything wider, and that QA against only
IE6. Or something similar.
Why yes, I have been stuck with supporting the aftermath of projects
like that.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then
quietly strangled." - Sir Barnett Cocks (1907-1989)
Jaimie Vandenbergh
Ah, you got there before me!
Cheers - J
--
"We all recall that the difference between a computer salesman and a car
salesman is that the car salesman *knows* he's lying to you"
"... and probably knows how to drive"
- F O'Donnell and M Smith, in afs
Tim Streater
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:19:09 +0000, Tim Streater
> <timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>> The web app that I'm writing only appears to run with Safari at the
>> moment. Doubtless once it's finished (or at least at v1.0) I'll try
>> making it work with FireFox.
>>
>> I'm not aware of doing anything that's Safari-only but there may be bugs
>> that Safari is tolerant of.
>
> But my question was, why is this sort of thing an issue at all, in
> 2009, 20+ years after the advent of the everyday computer?
Well, of course computers (that is, software programmable machines) have
been around since about 1950. It's only now that, for desktop use, we
are even all using the same CPU.
> I mean, we shouldn't have lazy developers being able to make some
> stuff work and not others ... or some machines not be able to work
> with stuff?
As was pointed out, your browser and its JavaScript actually modify the
browser's Document Object Model (DOM) which is its internal
representation of what you see in the browser's window. If you modify
the DOM, then in some behind-the-scenes fashion that I know nothing
about, what-you-see is updated.
I guess the point is that the DOMs differ in different browsers (unless
some of them share a common heritage in some way), and their
interpretation of the ECMAScript standard that the JS implementations
are supposed to adhere to, may differ slightly. Not unlike different
implementations of C, or FORTRAN.
> [1] The HP / Compaq chat portal was the first time I have come across
> need to consider this browser 'compatibility mode' thing (I've heard
> mention but never looked into). Why (in 2009) doesn't it do what it
> needs to do automatically (assuming it doesn't and I'm asking because
> I don't understand the mechanics etc).
It's not even a compatibility mode, as far as I know. You are simply
telling Safari that, should it be asked its identity by the remote end,
to lie about it and pretend to be IE.
It wouldn't even work to have all browsers lie like this all the time,
as IE implements stuff that is non-standard, in their usual
anti-competitive way.
Justin C
But the point is that, as a business person, you don't want to exclude
*any* potential customers from your service/sales. Whoever is employed
to build the site/app should not be using anything that is browser
specific, use only the published W3C stuff. It may be easier to achieve
certain things - in only a few browsers - if you use browser-specific
code, but you reduce your potential market. Terrible business practice.
Especially when even between versions of IE some things change and code
won't work in the next version that does now, or doesn't work in a
version two back from now.
I despise intensely those "best viewed in..." statements on web-sites.
Most of them have, fortunately, gone, but I found one the other week
that said I need "browser X, resolution Y, and window size Z".
Thankfully these are few and far between, and those who design such
sites are realising that it is not acceptable to dictate to the user how
they must view the site, and that they should design a site to give the
best user experience regardless of platform or software used. And that
can only be done by following the published standards.
<URL:http://www.w3.org> is very useful for all such published standards,
and I support totally what <URL:http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/> are
campaigning for.
T i m
>On 2009-11-21 10:44:13 +0000, T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> said:
>
>> But my question was, why is this sort of thing an issue at all, in
>> 2009, 20+ years after the advent of the everyday computer?
>>
>> I mean, we shouldn't have lazy developers being able to make some
>> stuff work and not others ... or some machines not be able to work
>> with stuff?
>>
>> It's like Mac / Linux are running LPG and the rest are on petrol (as
>> far as refilling), not just the odd pump nozzle being a different
>> shape. Why?
>
>Well...'ish. If everyone's just working to the same template there
>won't be any advances. WebKit (Safari/Chrome/a lot of mobile browers)
>for instance has some very nice features that IE can't do, Gecko
>(Firefox) as well (am struggling to think of something good to say
>about IE the other way round, must be -something-...).
Don't care, rarely use it. Not that I won't or hate it like some, it
obviously serves some purpose sometimes (re this thread), just not my
default browser.
>
>
>> Ok, before you say I know they are 'different' and that's fine, but
>> I'm not talking about difference I'm talking about compatibility, with
>> the world. [1]
>
>This is key I think. In the case of a web site, which is how this
>discussion started, then you should have graceful degradation. That is
>to say it's all very well putting on the bells and whistles, but if
>your site is targeted for the general audience it should be able to at
>least minimally function with the lowest common denominator.
Agreed, like these 'view in text only' type prompts you sometimes see.
>
>
>> [1] The HP / Compaq chat portal was the first time I have come across
>> need to consider this browser 'compatibility mode' thing (I've heard
>> mention but never looked into). Why (in 2009) doesn't it do what it
>> needs to do automatically (assuming it doesn't and I'm asking because
>> I don't understand the mechanics etc).
>
>It doesn't. Your direct answer in this case is neatly summarised by the
>phrase: "The developers of this portal were chimps". There's no good
>reason for something so simple not to function, we're just looking at
>incompetence.
Update on that noted.
Ok (and thanks), but (and sorry to be (especially) slow here) I still
don't 'get' why, after so many years of all this it's still happening?
Ok, example (and maybe an answer to myself). I've been 'looking into'
Linux for years, in fact my first real exposure that actually ran
(rather than was attempted then crashed and burned) was some v.9
Slackware or summat that was sent to me over the AX.25 Packet radio
network and ran from floppy. I had little to do with that as it was
set up for me remotely by some guru somewhere out in the ether.
Anyway, with Ubuntu 9.04 - I've found a Linux that is actually
useable, it does what Windows has been doing pretty well for donkeys
years re finding hardware (and better in some cases) and has worked on
many of the different platforms I have tested so far. So Linux is now
a user friendly (I've talked a few people through downloading,
burning, booting and / or installing it) alternative to Windows / OSX
that actually works (mostly).
But that's an entire OS with (as I understand it) little commercial
clout or popular appeal / need. Not even the same as a web browser /
site?
Cheers, T i m
Ian McCall
> Ok (and thanks), but (and sorry to be (especially) slow here) I still
> don't 'get' why, after so many years of all this it's still happening?
You and me both. Is long past the time when there was any excuse for
this, they simply got it wrong.
> Ok, example (and maybe an answer to myself). I've been 'looking into'
> Linux for years, in fact my first real exposure that actually ran
> (rather than was attempted then crashed and burned) was some v.9
> Slackware or summat that was sent to me over the AX.25 Packet radio
> network and ran from floppy. I had little to do with that as it was
> set up for me remotely by some guru somewhere out in the ether.
Probably 0.9a, which was my first Linux too.
> Anyway, with Ubuntu 9.04 - I've found a Linux that is actually
> useable, it does what Windows has been doing pretty well for donkeys
> years re finding hardware (and better in some cases) and has worked on
> many of the different platforms I have tested so far. So Linux is now
> a user friendly (I've talked a few people through downloading,
> burning, booting and / or installing it) alternative to Windows / OSX
> that actually works (mostly).
>
> But that's an entire OS with (as I understand it) little commercial
> clout or popular appeal / need. Not even the same as a web browser /
> site?
All depends what your aim is. Ubuntu explicitly caters to the desktop
crowd, and so is targeted at end-user friendliness and autodetection
etc.. When I use a desktop Linux, which is rare these days, I go for
Ubuntu.
Not all distros have the same aim however. I used CentOS, whose aim was
to be exactly like Red Hat Enterprise so I could get various certified
apps to work on it (in my case, power management software for a 1u
Compaq Proliant, which then ran VMware Server under which I had a
Debian install). Debian - well, Ubuntu is essentially Debian Unstable
with a spot of polish. Debian Stable's goal is to be an unchanging,
reliable environment. You lose out on bells and whistles, but as a
server deployment it makes sense.
The list goes on, but you get the idea. 'Linux' has no aim in
particular. Ubuntu has an aim, CentOS has an aim, Debian has an
aim...they're for different people.
They do have one thing in common though - spend a bit of time with
them, and you'll usually get the software targeted at one to work on
the ht other. That's where our web example becomes more relevant again
- there's usually some baseline minimum level of compatibility going
on. The web site should have this too - graceful degradation as we
talked about earlier. That they didn't - well, there's no logical
reason. Just means HP made a mess of it.
Cheers,
Ian
T i m
>
>Probably 0.9a, which was my first Linux too.
;-)
>
>
>> But that's an entire OS with (as I understand it) little commercial
>> clout or popular appeal / need. Not even the same as a web browser /
>> site?
>
>All depends what your aim is. Ubuntu explicitly caters to the desktop
>crowd, and so is targeted at end-user friendliness and autodetection
>etc..
Probably why it seems to be doing so well etc (as a desktop etc).
>When I use a desktop Linux, which is rare these days, I go for
>Ubuntu.
I've been though a few and got close to usability with a couple
(RedHat and Suse) but nothing as predictable as Ubuntu. However, there
are a few machines it just won't run on but will run XP fine?
I also had to change the WiFi card on one laptop to satisfy Vista, W7
and Ubuntu.
>
>Not all distros have the same aim however. I used CentOS, whose aim was
>to be exactly like Red Hat Enterprise so I could get various certified
>apps to work on it (in my case, power management software for a 1u
>Compaq Proliant, which then ran VMware Server under which I had a
>Debian install). Debian - well, Ubuntu is essentially Debian Unstable
>with a spot of polish. Debian Stable's goal is to be an unchanging,
>reliable environment. You lose out on bells and whistles, but as a
>server deployment it makes sense.
Understood. (And I think a penny has just dropped .. is that why I
need stuff with the .deb extension for Ubuntu)?
>
>The list goes on, but you get the idea. 'Linux' has no aim in
>particular. Ubuntu has an aim, CentOS has an aim, Debian has an
>aim...they're for different people.
Cheers. There is a Server disro of Ubuntu though isn't there (and the
Netbook version of course but that's just a derivative of the desktop
I guess).
>
>They do have one thing in common though - spend a bit of time with
>them, and you'll usually get the software targeted at one to work on
>the ht other.
(I'm not at that point yet. ;-( )
> That's where our web example becomes more relevant again
>- there's usually some baseline minimum level of compatibility going
>on. The web site should have this too - graceful degradation as we
>talked about earlier. That they didn't - well, there's no logical
>reason. Just means HP made a mess of it.
And they aren't a back street Co either are they?
Cheers, T i m
Ian McCall
> ...(And I think a penny has just dropped .. is that why I
> need stuff with the .deb extension for Ubuntu)?
Yes - .deb is a Debian package - a lot of distros use it. The other is
.rpm, RedHat Package Manager. RedHat, SuSE, CentOS and maybe others use
that one instead.
> ...There is a Server disro of Ubuntu though isn't there (and the
> Netbook version of course but that's just a derivative of the desktop
> I guess).
There is - tried it, found the quality control to be not as good as
Debian Stable. Then again, very few things are.
>> ...the web site should have this too - graceful degradation as we
>> talked about earlier. That they didn't - well, there's no logical
>> reason. Just means HP made a mess of it.
>
> And they aren't a back street Co either are they?
Often the way - smaller set-ups quite often have more passionate
people. Large corporates often have people just making a living. Bit of
a sweeping generalisation but there you go.
Cheers,
Ian
Ben Shimmin
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:38:13 +0000, T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>>But don't you still get hardware that forces you to use IE, like some
>>routers ... they wouldn't be using M$ web servers though would they?
>
> You might try logging onto your router(s) with telnet.
T i m is confused here. You can serve up perfectly standards-compliant
web sites from IIS just as well as you can from Apache, lighttpd, or
any other web server. The converse is also true.
b.
--
<b...@bas.me.uk> <URL:http://bas.me.uk/>
`Property, marriage, the law; as the bed to the river, so rule
and convention to the instinct; and woe to him who tampers with
the banks while the flood is flowing.' -- Samuel Butler, _Erewhon_
T i m
>Might be worth mentioning:
>
> https://wdg2.apple.com/ssowebapp/login.jsp?appID=21
> AppleConnect requires Safari� 1.0 or better.
>
> https://bugreport.apple.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/RadarWeb.woa/wa/signIn
> Note: Safari is the suggested browser for use of the Bug Reporter
You can sorta forgive the recommendation for Safari on both of those
though couldn't you. ;-)
>
>I never had a problem using FF there, though, and I wouldn't
>object to using Safari if FF didn't work.
I generally use FF > Opera > IE > Safari > Chrome > Give up (order for
no logical or clever reason).
Cheers, T i m
T i m
<b...@llamaselector.com> wrote:
>R <me...@privacy.net>:
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:38:13 +0000, T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>>>But don't you still get hardware that forces you to use IE, like some
>>>routers ... they wouldn't be using M$ web servers though would they?
>>
>> No. They'll be little linux web servers in many cases.
>> You might try logging onto your router(s) with telnet.
>
>T i m is confused here.
Whilst that wouldn't be surprising in general, in this case I don't
think I am. I assumed M$ could produce (or allow the production of)
perfectly compliant servers / sites but offered non-compliant
bells_and _whistles options that people often chose to use.
> You can serve up perfectly standards-compliant
>web sites from IIS just as well as you can from Apache, lighttpd, or
>any other web server.
Yup, that was my understanding.
> The converse is also true.
That I didn't know (other than via poor / non compliant coding etc),
assuming they would all only play by the book (afraid of being tarred
with the M$ brush etc).
T i m
Justin C
[snip]
> Debian Stable's goal is to be an unchanging,
> reliable environment. You lose out on bells and whistles, but as a
> server deployment it makes sense.
I maintain five Debian servers running 24/7/365. Re-booted one the other
day due to a problem with what appeared to be a runaway process (but was
me being daft - just don't ask). Noticed the uptime before re-boot was
over 500 days. That box is an SMTP server, news server, SMB (samba)
server for 12 clients, AFP server (for the same clients - transitioning
from samba to afp), print server for three network printers, in-house
web-server, development web-server, postgres server - there really isn't
much it doesn't do! I installed Debian "Woody" on it a few years ago,
and since then it's only been up-graded, and dist-upgraded, with just an
occasional reboot for a new kernel when up-grading. Gonna get me an
I[heart]Debian T shirt! ... oh, and in the last three hours it's also
become and mail relay for the boss's personal domain (changed his ISP to
Andrews Arnold where one doesn't appear to get an email address), took
less than five minutes, and that included hunting through a stack of
papers for login details for the site that hosts his domain to change
where they direct mail.... maybe I should get an I[heart]Debian tattoo,
yeah, I *do* love it that much!
> They do have one thing in common though - spend a bit of time with
> them, and you'll usually get the software targeted at one to work on
> the ht other. That's where our web example becomes more relevant again
> - there's usually some baseline minimum level of compatibility going
> on. The web site should have this too - graceful degradation as we
> talked about earlier. That they didn't - well, there's no logical
> reason. Just means HP made a mess of it.
I agree, by all means detect the browser and offer an "enhanced
experience" to those with certain browsers, but make sure everything
works for everyone first.
Justin C
[snip]
> It's not even a compatibility mode, as far as I know. You are simply
> telling Safari that, should it be asked its identity by the remote end,
> to lie about it and pretend to be IE.
>
> It wouldn't even work to have all browsers lie like this all the time,
> as IE implements stuff that is non-standard, in their usual
> anti-competitive way.
That's the ridiculous thing, isn't it? The browser lies about what it is
and the site works! I've been doing that with browsers since Opera 3 and
can't get over how stupid it is - the creator of the page has to go to
the effort of creating an 'unless useragent=IE {do broken-browser()}'
when, if they'd done nothing at all then all would be well[1]!
Justin.
1. I accept that isn't always the case but IME it is more often than
not.
zoara
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:53:48 +0000, Ian McCall <i...@eruvia.org> wrote:
>
> >On 2009-11-21 10:44:13 +0000, T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> said:
> >
> >> [1] The HP / Compaq chat portal was the first time I have come
> > > across
> >> need to consider this browser 'compatibility mode' thing (I've
> > > heard
> >> mention but never looked into). Why (in 2009) doesn't it do what it
> >> needs to do automatically (assuming it doesn't and I'm asking
> > > because
> >> I don't understand the mechanics etc).
> >
> >It doesn't. Your direct answer in this case is neatly summarised by
> > the
> >phrase: "The developers of this portal were chimps". There's no good
> >reason for something so simple not to function, we're just looking at
> >
> >incompetence.
>
> To be fair on the developers, *theoretically* they could have been
> told that the spec was to write it for IE6 compatibility with no
> efforts to be put towards anything wider, and that QA against only
> IE6. Or something similar.
>
> Why yes, I have been stuck with supporting the aftermath of projects
> like that.
Only yesterday I was dealing with some crap like that. The code in place
meant that it worked in IE6 and kind-of worked in other browsers. The
change I had been asked to make meant that the "kind-of" became
"flat-out doesn't". And because of the horrendous design of the code [1]
I'm still trying to work out how best to tackle that in the
circumstances. I can see an "official decision" to only support IE in my
near future.
-zoara-
[1] an absolute mess of copy-paste coding. Classes a thousand lines
long, containing many hundred-line methods that were literal copy-pastes
of each other, bar one or two lines. Even the comments were copy-pasted,
even though the changes meant the comments didn't apply.
--
email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
zoara
> 2009, 20+ years after the advent of the everyday computer?
>
> I mean, we shouldn't have lazy developers being able to make some
> stuff work and not others ...
*hollow, bitter laugh*
-zoara-
Rowland McDonnell
> Ian McCall <i...@eruvia.org> wrote:
>
> >T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> said:
> >
> >> [1] The HP / Compaq chat portal was the first time I have come across
> >> need to consider this browser 'compatibility mode' thing (I've heard
> >> mention but never looked into). Why (in 2009) doesn't it do what it
> >> needs to do automatically (assuming it doesn't and I'm asking because
> >> I don't understand the mechanics etc).
> >
> >It doesn't. Your direct answer in this case is neatly summarised by the
> >phrase: "The developers of this portal were chimps". There's no good
> >reason for something so simple not to function, we're just looking at
> >incompetence.
>
> To be fair on the developers, *theoretically* they could have been
> told that the spec was to write it for IE6 compatibility with no
> efforts to be put towards anything wider, and that QA against only
> IE6. Or something similar.
But if the developers were not chimps, they would have refused to carry
out such a stupid project. Because chimps are available who will
blindly follow orders rather than behaving as competent professionals,
idiotic management carries the day.
The developers were therefore chimps.
[snip]
Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland....@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
Rowland McDonnell
> Justin C:
>
> > T i m wrote:
[snip]
> >> If it's just that why don't they say that in their warning message? I
> >> mean, if you see a site that says 'IEx or later' then you know that if
> >> you can't connect it's likely to be a browser issue but they (HP in
> >> this case) didn't say that?
> >
> >There's absolutely no need to write any browser based application that
> >won't work cross platform.
>
> I think I understand that M$ did (or does) their own thing
> web_server_wise hence why people might be forced into using IE to view
> it (properly).
MS has been forced to give up most of the dirty tricks of that sort it's
used - they were what enabled it to destroy almost all its competition
in the PC marketplace, leaving us with the current world order of
expensive poor quality PCs and almost no choice.
Once upon a time, MS did appear to be trying to take over the global
internet, without having realized that it wasn't possible. It gave up
ages ago, hence no IE on anything but Windoze, so demanding that IE be
used to view a Web page is very very stupid these days, since you're
cutting yourself off from everyone except those who use Windoze.
Woody
> Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
>
> > Ian McCall <i...@eruvia.org> wrote:
> >
> > >T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> said:
> > >
> > >> [1] The HP / Compaq chat portal was the first time I have come across
> > >> need to consider this browser 'compatibility mode' thing (I've heard
> > >> mention but never looked into). Why (in 2009) doesn't it do what it
> > >> needs to do automatically (assuming it doesn't and I'm asking because
> > >> I don't understand the mechanics etc).
> > >
> > >It doesn't. Your direct answer in this case is neatly summarised by the
> > >phrase: "The developers of this portal were chimps". There's no good
> > >reason for something so simple not to function, we're just looking at
> > >incompetence.
> >
> > To be fair on the developers, *theoretically* they could have been
> > told that the spec was to write it for IE6 compatibility with no
> > efforts to be put towards anything wider, and that QA against only
> > IE6. Or something similar.
>
> But if the developers were not chimps, they would have refused to carry
> out such a stupid project. Because chimps are available who will
> blindly follow orders rather than behaving as competent professionals,
> idiotic management carries the day.
>
> The developers were therefore chimps.
Can you be a cometent professional when you are on the dole as noone
will employ you as you wont do the job they want done?
--
Woody
T i m
real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>MS has been forced to give up most of the dirty tricks of that sort it's
>used - they were what enabled it to destroy almost all its competition
>in the PC marketplace, leaving us with the current world order of
>expensive poor quality PCs and almost no choice.
Mine have always been cheap, good quality and I have of choice (as I
build my own) but I get yer drift.
>
>Once upon a time, MS did appear to be trying to take over the global
>internet, without having realized that it wasn't possible.
The Microsoft Network, them as a content provider like CompuServe? I
remember it and didn't join.
> It gave up
>ages ago, hence no IE on anything but Windoze,
Dad still uses IE on his OS9 (I've tried to get him to use Netscape
but it doesn't work as well in general).
> so demanding that IE be
>used to view a Web page is very very stupid these days, since you're
>cutting yourself off from everyone except those who use Windoze.
And even those who do but don't use IE. However, I think those
numbers, like the 'Non Windows' clients are small so I'm not sure how
much of an issue it would be for them even now.
Cheers, T i m
Rowland McDonnell
> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>
> >MS has been forced to give up most of the dirty tricks of that sort it's
> >used - they were what enabled it to destroy almost all its competition
> >in the PC marketplace, leaving us with the current world order of
> >expensive poor quality PCs and almost no choice.
>
> Mine have always been cheap, good quality and I have of choice (as I
> build my own) but I get yer drift.
No, you do not have any significant choice: there is only one modern PC
architecture. There is only one CPU family to choose from. None of
it's great.
I don't see how one can argue that the x86 ISA (even the 64 bit extended
versions) isn't shoddy. And yet it's universal, near enough.
> >Once upon a time, MS did appear to be trying to take over the global
> >internet, without having realized that it wasn't possible.
>
> The Microsoft Network, them as a content provider like CompuServe? I
> remember it and didn't join.
Not only that, but also trying to force all Web users to use IE using
MS's usual shady business dealings.
> > It gave up
> >ages ago, hence no IE on anything but Windoze,
>
> Dad still uses IE on his OS9 (I've tried to get him to use Netscape
> but it doesn't work as well in general).
Well, no, it wouldn't. iCab would be a better bet than either, though.
v3.0.5 for Mac OS 8.5 - 9.2.2.
Suitable download link from <http://www.icab.de/dl.php>:
<http://www.icab.de/download.php?os=Classic&lang=en>
('ello! There's a 64 bit version now; v4.7. Heh. Why not give it a
bash? No, not anyone else, that's me talking to me, that is)
> > so demanding that IE be
> >used to view a Web page is very very stupid these days, since you're
> >cutting yourself off from everyone except those who use Windoze.
>
> And even those who do but don't use IE. However, I think those
> numbers, like the 'Non Windows' clients are small so I'm not sure how
> much of an issue it would be for them even now.
Yeah, well since MS has less than 90% of the global PC desktop share,
the numbers of such users is enormous. And, btw, there's a much larger
percentage of actual *HOME* computers that aren't MS than raw data would
suggest. It's the `corporate world' where MS dominates all; much less
so in the home.
So we know that rather more than 10% of home computer users don't use MS
OSes - that's a really big number, that is. I suspect it's more like
70-80% of home computer users suffer MS, which means that something like
1/5th-1/3rd of home computer users aren't using MS - at a very rough
guess.
Tiny numbers, of course. Tiny, tiny, trivially small irrelevant
numbers. Of course locking out a significant fraction of your market
doesn't matter at all, of course it doesn't matter to a firm if those
people decide that they'll spend their money with someone who actually
wants their business.
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
[snip]
> > But if the developers were not chimps, they would have refused to carry
> > out such a stupid project. Because chimps are available who will
> > blindly follow orders rather than behaving as competent professionals,
> > idiotic management carries the day.
> >
> > The developers were therefore chimps.
>
> Can you be a cometent professional when you are on the dole as noone
> will employ you as you wont do the job they want done?
<puzzled> But why are you talking about permitting yourself to be
bullied and exploited by `the man' in that fashion? All the folks I
grew up with who went into programming/electronic design/etc have ended
up self-employed (at least, the ones I know about - turns out there's a
lot of 'em ended up doing approximately the same thing).
They only do what they want, they do it to their standards, and they
WON'T churn out shite. They get contracted to do jobs - and that means
they can tell the hiring firm's management where to stick their moronic
ideas about how to do the job. Oh yes they can, and they do.
So I suppose my basic line is that if you're a developer working as a
wage slave, you're probably a chimp.
Jim
> But if the developers were not chimps, they would have refused to carry
> out such a stupid project. Because chimps are available who will
> blindly follow orders rather than behaving as competent professionals,
> idiotic management carries the day.
>
> The developers were therefore chimps.
The *real* world of software development doesn't work like that.
Jim
--
http://www.ursaMinorBeta.co.uk http://twitter.com/GreyAreaUK
Please help save Bletchley Park - sign the petition for
Government funding at: (open to UK residents and ex.pats)
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/BletchleyPark/ Thank you.
Woody
> Woody <use...@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Jaimie Vandenbergh <jai...@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > > But if the developers were not chimps, they would have refused to carry
> > > out such a stupid project. Because chimps are available who will
> > > blindly follow orders rather than behaving as competent professionals,
> > > idiotic management carries the day.
> > >
> > > The developers were therefore chimps.
> >
> > Can you be a cometent professional when you are on the dole as noone
> > will employ you as you wont do the job they want done?
>
> <puzzled> But why are you talking about permitting yourself to be
> bullied and exploited by `the man' in that fashion?
Becasue at some level we all need to eat and live. I personally would
rather write code to the best of my abilities within the confines I am
given than sit on the dole and moan about the man.
> All the folks I
> grew up with who went into programming/electronic design/etc have ended
> up self-employed (at least, the ones I know about - turns out there's a
> lot of 'em ended up doing approximately the same thing).
Well, yes, I am self employed, but you still need to work for someone
> They only do what they want, they do it to their standards, and they
> WON'T churn out shite.
I am not talking about turning out shite, I am talking about doing the
job you have been asked to do.
--
Woody
Tim Streater
> T i m<ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>>
>>> MS has been forced to give up most of the dirty tricks of that sort it's
>>> used - they were what enabled it to destroy almost all its competition
>>> in the PC marketplace, leaving us with the current world order of
>>> expensive poor quality PCs and almost no choice.
>>
>> Mine have always been cheap, good quality and I have of choice (as I
>> build my own) but I get yer drift.
>
> No, you do not have any significant choice: there is only one modern PC
> architecture. There is only one CPU family to choose from. None of
> it's great.
>
> I don't see how one can argue that the x86 ISA (even the 64 bit extended
> versions) isn't shoddy. And yet it's universal, near enough.
Well, it may well be, but I'd say most developers don't have to be aware
of that.
Peter Ceresole
> > The developers were therefore chimps.
>
> The *real* world of software development doesn't work like that.
Not just the world of software development; that's how it works in the
real world, full stop.
--
Peter
Woody
Depends what you are doing. If I look at my webstats for last month I
get 84% of those people using IE of some sort, so 16% of them using
something else. So if my shop got �4000 in that month, if I didn't cater
for those 16% as a straight statistic, I would lose �640.
Obviously it wouldn't work out quite like that as they don't all spend
the same, but it isn't a market that if I was windows only here I could
afford to lose.
--
Woody
T i m
wrote:
>T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:20:48 +0000,
>> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>
>> > so demanding that IE be
>> >used to view a Web page is very very stupid these days, since you're
>> >cutting yourself off from everyone except those who use Windoze.
>>
>> And even those who do but don't use IE. However, I think those
>> numbers, like the 'Non Windows' clients are small so I'm not sure how
>> much of an issue it would be for them even now.
>
>Depends what you are doing. If I look at my webstats for last month I
>get 84% of those people using IE of some sort,
Out of interest, would it also log say Safari users emulating IE as
'IE users'?
> so 16% of them using
>something else.
Weirdo's. ;-)
> So if my shop got �4000 in that month, if I didn't cater
>for those 16% as a straight statistic, I would lose �640.
Ah, understood and something I've questioned all along (staring with
Dad's OS9 setup and reading about folk here not being able to contact
their banks etc).
>
>Obviously it wouldn't work out quite like that as they don't all spend
>the same, but it isn't a market that if I was windows only here I could
>afford to lose.
Sure. However, a lot of these sites aren't selling stuff but allowing
you to access your own money, or chat to a support en//technician (at
HP) so if you don't conform it's your loss?
Cheers, T i m
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <39jlg5td8c8vraqi2...@4ax.com>):
> Sure. However, a lot of these sites aren't selling stuff but allowing
> you to access your own money, or chat to a support en//technician (at
> HP) so if you don't conform it's your loss?
If they don't fix it, and fix it quick, my money (and my company's money) is
removed from their institution and placed with someone who isn't an idiot.
Same goes for those who 'require' MSIE for tech support: we decline to
purchase from the likes of them. And in both cases we say why on our way out
the door.
And, oh, as of the last time I tried to contact HP non-support, Safari on
Macs worked just about as well as MSIE. (Which is to say that there was a
major cock-up, something I've come to expect from HP, which is why as old HP
devices die around here they are being replaced by new devices from other
vendors.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Woody
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:27:30 +0000, use...@alienrat.co.uk (Woody)
> wrote:
>
> >T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:20:48 +0000,
> >> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
> >
> >> > so demanding that IE be
> >> >used to view a Web page is very very stupid these days, since you're
> >> >cutting yourself off from everyone except those who use Windoze.
> >>
> >> And even those who do but don't use IE. However, I think those
> >> numbers, like the 'Non Windows' clients are small so I'm not sure how
> >> much of an issue it would be for them even now.
> >
> >Depends what you are doing. If I look at my webstats for last month I
> >get 84% of those people using IE of some sort,
>
> Out of interest, would it also log say Safari users emulating IE as
> 'IE users'?
It would.
> > so 16% of them using
> >something else.
>
> Weirdo's. ;-)
>
> > So if my shop got �4000 in that month, if I didn't cater
> >for those 16% as a straight statistic, I would lose �640.
>
> Ah, understood and something I've questioned all along (staring with
> Dad's OS9 setup and reading about folk here not being able to contact
> their banks etc).
> >
> >Obviously it wouldn't work out quite like that as they don't all spend
> >the same, but it isn't a market that if I was windows only here I could
> >afford to lose.
>
> Sure. However, a lot of these sites aren't selling stuff but allowing
> you to access your own money, or chat to a support en//technician (at
> HP) so if you don't conform it's your loss?
Or theirs. nowadays, I can access my details with my browser of choice,
or they are not a company I am using.
I can't think of anything offhand I can't access with a normal browser.
Last time I couldn't get what I wanted on my browser was the odeon
website, so I didn't go. It is there choice.
--
Woody
T i m
<try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:07:45 -0500, T i m wrote
>(in article <39jlg5td8c8vraqi2...@4ax.com>):
>
>> Sure. However, a lot of these sites aren't selling stuff but allowing
>> you to access your own money, or chat to a support en//technician (at
>> HP) so if you don't conform it's your loss?
>
>If they don't fix it, and fix it quick, my money (and my company's money) is
>removed from their institution and placed with someone who isn't an idiot.
Ok ;-)
>Same goes for those who 'require' MSIE for tech support: we decline to
>purchase from the likes of them. And in both cases we say why on our way out
>the door.
Fairy muff.
>
>And, oh, as of the last time I tried to contact HP non-support, Safari on
>Macs worked just about as well as MSIE. (Which is to say that there was a
>major cock-up, something I've come to expect from HP, which is why as old HP
>devices die around here they are being replaced by new devices from other
>vendors.
You have the power.
Of course, because I've pretty well always had access to IE (even
though it's never been my preferred browser since the days of Netscape
Communicator or possibly before) I didn't realise how much not having
it (or access to or emulation of) there was out there.
But then that's partly why I've never been drawn away from the dark
side.
Cheers, T i m
T i m
wrote:
>
>> Out of interest, would it also log say Safari users emulating IE as
>> 'IE users'?
>
>It would.
Ok. So (not knowing how these things work), if you were to turn this
trickery on to make a particular site work, would it stay on ... such
that it then appears as such to all subsequent sites you accessed
(like leaving yer fog lights on)?
>
>> Sure. However, a lot of these sites aren't selling stuff but allowing
>> you to access your own money, or chat to a support en//technician (at
>> HP) so if you don't conform it's your loss?
>
>Or theirs. nowadays, I can access my details with my browser of choice,
>or they are not a company I am using.
Indeed, if you do actually have the choice etc (like what if it was
the DVLA site as I believe I found a while back with mock driving
theory tests)?
>I can't think of anything offhand I can't access with a normal browser.
>Last time I couldn't get what I wanted on my browser was the odeon
>website, so I didn't go. It is there choice.
But if you already had an HP/Compaq and actually wanted to make use of
their online chat (and believed their 'IE only' warning as I did) you
might be stuck?
Voting with your feet isn't always an option, or not instantly anyway.
;-(
I don't advocate IE remember and was just asking how we could still be
in position in 2009 (and think I have all the answers now thanks).
Cheers, T i m
R
Or you switch bank and it's their loss.
Woody
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:17:38 +0000, use...@alienrat.co.uk (Woody)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >> Out of interest, would it also log say Safari users emulating IE as
> >> 'IE users'?
> >
> >It would.
>
> Ok. So (not knowing how these things work), if you were to turn this
> trickery on to make a particular site work, would it stay on ... such
> that it then appears as such to all subsequent sites you accessed
> (like leaving yer fog lights on)?
Generally speaking, it would stay on if you didn't change it. However,
it would be a small fraction of a percent of any browser that did that,
as it would be a technical solution
> >> Sure. However, a lot of these sites aren't selling stuff but allowing
> >> you to access your own money, or chat to a support en//technician (at
> >> HP) so if you don't conform it's your loss?
> >
> >Or theirs. nowadays, I can access my details with my browser of choice,
> >or they are not a company I am using.
>
> Indeed, if you do actually have the choice etc (like what if it was
> the DVLA site as I believe I found a while back with mock driving
> theory tests)?
Oh yes, I don't know, I haven't been to the DVLA site for a while for
driving tests. It worked fine for updating my taxdisk recently though.
> >I can't think of anything offhand I can't access with a normal browser.
> >Last time I couldn't get what I wanted on my browser was the odeon
> >website, so I didn't go. It is there choice.
>
> But if you already had an HP/Compaq and actually wanted to make use of
> their online chat (and believed their 'IE only' warning as I did) you
> might be stuck?
Maybe - I do have a HP but I don't do online chat with companies (or I
never have yet), I go on the assumption that the online chat would be
the same people you have on the phones, who are following their script
and almost certainly not able to help me!
But yes, that would be a problem, so that the next time I was buing a PC
it would be down on the negative of the list of features. It wouldn't be
enough to stop me from buying from them, but if there was a choice
between two otherwise identical systems, it could be enough to tip the
choice.
> Voting with your feet isn't always an option, or not instantly anyway.
> ;-(
It normally is.
>
> I don't advocate IE remember and was just asking how we could still be
> in position in 2009 (and think I have all the answers now thanks).
To be honest, it is down to companies getting too large for themselves
and not thinking it through. If I look in the high street when I go for
a walk at lunchtime, I see a lot more boarded up shops now than there
were a year ago. Most of those (actually all of them apart from woolies)
I was not suprised about. Some companies get very compacent.
I have an online business, which competes with lots of other online
buisnesses. It is a tough world out there, and if there is something I
am doing which prevents me getting sales from something so silly, I need
to fix it. If I didn't, I would deserve everything I (didn't) get
--
Woody
Alienrat Design Ltd
T i m
Only in the phone call costs as you can't do it online. ;-)
Cheers, T i m
T i m
wrote:
>> Ok. So (not knowing how these things work), if you were to turn this
>> trickery on to make a particular site work, would it stay on ... such
>> that it then appears as such to all subsequent sites you accessed
>> (like leaving yer fog lights on)?
>
>Generally speaking, it would stay on if you didn't change it.
Ok ta.
> However,
>it would be a small fraction of a percent of any browser that did that,
>as it would be a technical solution
K.
>
>> Indeed, if you do actually have the choice etc (like what if it was
>> the DVLA site as I believe I found a while back with mock driving
>> theory tests)?
>
>Oh yes, I don't know, I haven't been to the DVLA site for a while for
>driving tests. It worked fine for updating my taxdisk recently though.
Oh sure, but as it may have done when we were looking at the online
mock tests, but that opens up another issue, where sub portals on a
site may not work even though the main bit might. And I could se why
they may focus on say the Tax renewal bit but not the (free) online
mock test bit.
>
>> But if you already had an HP/Compaq and actually wanted to make use of
>> their online chat (and believed their 'IE only' warning as I did) you
>> might be stuck?
>
>Maybe - I do have a HP but I don't do online chat with companies (or I
>never have yet), I go on the assumption that the online chat would be
>the same people you have on the phones, who are following their script
>and almost certainly not able to help me!
True enough, but at least you have a record of the entire conversation
(handy when you need to escalate it).
>
>But yes, that would be a problem, so that the next time I was buing a PC
>it would be down on the negative of the list of features. It wouldn't be
>enough to stop me from buying from them, but if there was a choice
>between two otherwise identical systems, it could be enough to tip the
>choice.
Ok.
>
>> Voting with your feet isn't always an option, or not instantly anyway.
>> ;-(
>
>It normally is.
It is? So, you are standing in PCW looking at two similar priced
models, are you really going to test their online chat support portal
to see if it's browser neutral?
>
>>
>> I don't advocate IE remember and was just asking how we could still be
>> in position in 2009 (and think I have all the answers now thanks).
>
>To be honest, it is down to companies getting too large for themselves
>and not thinking it through. If I look in the high street when I go for
>a walk at lunchtime, I see a lot more boarded up shops now than there
>were a year ago. Most of those (actually all of them apart from woolies)
>I was not suprised about. Some companies get very compacent.
Understood.
>
>I have an online business, which competes with lots of other online
>buisnesses. It is a tough world out there, and if there is something I
>am doing which prevents me getting sales from something so silly, I need
>to fix it. If I didn't, I would deserve everything I (didn't) get
Yup.
Cheers, T i m
Woody
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:59:49 +0000, use...@alienrat.co.uk (Woody)
> wrote:
> >> Voting with your feet isn't always an option, or not instantly anyway.
> >> ;-(
> >
> >It normally is.
>
> It is? So, you are standing in PCW looking at two similar priced
> models, are you really going to test their online chat support portal
> to see if it's browser neutral?
You know full well that I am not going to be standing in PCW to buy a
PC!
T i m
wrote:
Erm ... why do I think I remember summat about you popping in and
buying your eeePC? ;-)
Cheers, T i m
Ian McCall
real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) said:
> Not only that, but also trying to force all Web users to use IE using
> MS's usual shady business dealings.
Well...I actually give them some slack here. I switched to IE because
it was better, not because MS forced me to. People tend to forget how
mind-numbingly bad Netscape 4 was, and how long it took to come out as
well. Proprietary tags in IE? Yes, there were. There also were in
Netscape too, and it was only getting worse.
Were this a few years back, we'd be cursing trying to get any CSS
working inside Netscape 4 and berating the fact they'd gone off on
their own subverting all standards...
Of course, later I switched away from IE because it stagnated. I
switched to Phoenix, errr...I mean Firebird....sorry, Firefox. Yes,
that's what I switched to. And with the latest Firefox and its
'awesome' bar, I'm actively looking to move away from that as well as
now -it- is the bloated thing. I use Safari on the Mac, still Firefox
on the PC though since I'd rather not go advertising-happy with Chrome
and I've never got on with Opera. Must admit I've never tried Safari on
the PC though.
Anyway, point of the rambling above is that I'm definitely not averse
to switching to better things, and I switched away from Netscape and
over to IE by choice.
Cheers,
Ian
Woody
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:05:13 +0000, use...@alienrat.co.uk (Woody)
> wrote:
>
> >T i m <ne...@spaced.me.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:59:49 +0000, use...@alienrat.co.uk (Woody)
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> >> Voting with your feet isn't always an option, or not instantly anyway.
> >> >> ;-(
> >> >
> >> >It normally is.
> >>
> >> It is? So, you are standing in PCW looking at two similar priced
> >> models, are you really going to test their online chat support portal
> >> to see if it's browser neutral?
> >
> >You know full well that I am not going to be standing in PCW to buy a
> >PC!
>
> Erm ... why do I think I remember summat about you popping in and
> buying your eeePC? ;-)
Well, yes, after researching it on the net first!
--
Woody
Justin C
[snip]
> Depends what you are doing. If I look at my webstats for last month I
> get 84% of those people using IE of some sort, so 16% of them using
> something else.
The problem is you'll never know how many are using a browser with the
user-agent faked. I'm sure there must be people out there with it
permanently set to IE just for an easier time around the interwebs.
It looks good to MS "all of these people are using our software", and
doesn't help anyone else gauge market penetration.
Justin.
--
Justin C, by the sea.
zoara
> Maybe - I do have a HP but I don't do online chat with companies (or I
> never have yet), I go on the assumption that the online chat would be
> the same people you have on the phones, who are following their script
> and almost certainly not able to help me!
Worse, they're the same people dealing with half a dozen customers at
once. At least if you're calling them, their attention is solely devoted
to you (and the person on the next desk that they're flirting with).
I was amazed how deftly the call centre guys I saw were able to deal
with multiple chat sessions at once (plus the flirting) but the
shallowness of the support offered (ie click a button to have the canned
response pasted in) totally confirmed my feeling that "live chat
support" made no sense when there was a phone number you could call.
-zoara-
--
email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
zoara
Arguably, that 16% is the 16% most likely to spend time and effort
seeking out alternatives to what's placed in front of them. Presumably
they'd be more likely to spend more money looking for alternatives, too;
making them your most valuable customers...
-z-
Rowland McDonnell
> use...@alienrat.co.uk (Woody) wrote:
[snip]
> > so 16% of them using
> >something else.
>
> Weirdo's. ;-)
[snip]
Not as weird as you, writing a plural like that.
Rowland McDonnell
> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) said:
>
> > Not only that, but also trying to force all Web users to use IE using
> > MS's usual shady business dealings.
>
> Well...I actually give them some slack here. I switched to IE because
> it was better, not because MS forced me to. People tend to forget how
> mind-numbingly bad Netscape 4 was, and how long it took to come out as
> well.
I'm not sure I follow you there. Netscrape Navigator died because it
never did get sorted out in the new world order after the browser wars.
>Proprietary tags in IE? Yes, there were. There also were in
> Netscape too, and it was only getting worse.
Both Netscrape and MS's Internet Exploiter deserve criticism. The fact
that one was bad doesn't mean that the other one was good.
> Were this a few years back, we'd be cursing trying to get any CSS
> working inside Netscape 4 and berating the fact they'd gone off on
> their own subverting all standards...
Well, subverting all the standards is what MS and Netscape both did in
those days, isn't it?
> Of course, later I switched away from IE because it stagnated. I
> switched to Phoenix, errr...I mean Firebird....sorry, Firefox. Yes,
> that's what I switched to.
I switched to iCab because, way back when, it was so damned fast.
> And with the latest Firefox and its
> 'awesome' bar, I'm actively looking to move away from that as well as
> now -it- is the bloated thing.
Eh? I dunno what you think's bloated about Firefox. Doesn't look like
it here. And the horrible risks of going Web browsing without some
protection against scripts and all the other things - ooh... Not to
mention the need to have effective advert blocking in place.
Firefox is essential using in my book - there are a lot of Web sites
that I'd be quite unable to use unless I had Firefox's ad blocking and
flash blocking.
> I use Safari on the Mac, still Firefox
> on the PC though since I'd rather not go advertising-happy with Chrome
> and I've never got on with Opera. Must admit I've never tried Safari on
> the PC though.
Don't look at me, I've not used Windoze since 1995.
> Anyway, point of the rambling above is that I'm definitely not averse
> to switching to better things, and I switched away from Netscape and
> over to IE by choice.
AIUI, IE always had a lot more security flaws than the competition. And
it was always slow and bloated and unreliable by comparison to the
competition. The only use I ever found for it was browsing `IE only
sites' which are thankfully rare these days.
Rowland McDonnell
Both of you are making no sense at all.
What I've described is what I've been told by real life software
developers working for real in the real world, and since they make a
living doing it freelance, I think I can take their word for it.
If you think that they're wrong - well, you're wrong, both of you.
Jim
>>
>> > > The developers were therefore chimps.
>> >
>> > The *real* world of software development doesn't work like that.
>>
>> Not just the world of software development; that's how it works in the
>> real world, full stop.
>
> Both of you are making no sense at all.
>
> What I've described is what I've been told by real life software
> developers working for real in the real world, and since they make a
> living doing it freelance, I think I can take their word for it.
I do it in for a living as well. Not (always) freelance but that's neither
here nor there.
> If you think that they're wrong - well, you're wrong, both of you.
Well, I _know_ you're wrong. The real world doesn't boil down to just "if
(x) then (y)". When you work for someone else you have to follow company
policy. Sure, you can try to amend it but at the end of the day you do what
you have to do earn a living.
Simply not having the business skills to work for yourself doesn't make you a
chimp. If you think otherwise then you have a vastly over-simplified view of
the world.
My Oasis of Calm has dried up. However, my Garden of Angry is
flourishing quite nicely.
Woody
> Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Jim <j...@magrathea.plus.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > The developers were therefore chimps.
> > >
> > > The *real* world of software development doesn't work like that.
> >
> > Not just the world of software development; that's how it works in the
> > real world, full stop.
>
> Both of you are making no sense at all.
Well, I am out there, earning money. As I need to to suport myself and
my family.
> What I've described is what I've been told by real life software
> developers working for real in the real world, and since they make a
> living doing it freelance, I think I can take their word for it.
You can. I can't. I don't know who they are or if they are telling you
the truth. Certainly doesn't sound like any work environment I know.
I do contracts for people, I have to produce what they want otherwise
they don't pay me. OK, I can do it largely my way, but I still have to
produce what I am contracted to produce.
I know of no other way of making money (apart from claiming the dole)
> If you think that they're wrong - well, you're wrong, both of you.
I have no idea if they are wrong, or even if they exist.
--
Woody
Woody
> On 2009-11-23 04:37:17 +0000,
> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) said:
>
> > Not only that, but also trying to force all Web users to use IE using
> > MS's usual shady business dealings.
>
> Of course, later I switched away from IE because it stagnated. I
> switched to Phoenix, errr...I mean Firebird....sorry, Firefox. Yes,
> that's what I switched to. And with the latest Firefox and its
> 'awesome' bar, I'm actively looking to move away from that as well as
> now -it- is the bloated thing.
I have on the Mac. Well, I keep it around but it is bloated and
unpleasant.
>I use Safari on the Mac, still Firefox
> on the PC though since I'd rather not go advertising-happy with Chrome
> and I've never got on with Opera. Must admit I've never tried Safari on
> the PC though.
I use chrome and safari on the PC. Safari isn't a natural fit but it is
fast and it works.
I still use firefox on the PC, but less and less now - I can actually
start up safari (or chrome), do a search in google and generally by the
time it has navigated to the first thing I have clicked on, firefoxes
window appears.
--
Woody