Microsoft Makes Testing IE6 and 7 Easier

:C by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-01 04:22 · Score: 1, Funny

By making them just crash when you start them up, instead of making you wait for 30 seconds!

::ducks::

Helping check compatibility is the right idea by traindirector · 2006-12-01 04:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

What would have really been good news for web developers would have been if Microsoft had gone a bit further with the standards support and not broken a number of methods developers used to trick IE6.

That being said, reaching out a hand to the web development community like this is a great move on Microsoft's part. It will encourage developers to test for both IE6 and IE7 even if they couldn't normally run both (or either). I would imagine this would be enormously useful for Mac developers who don't want to buy a PC (as I imagine it would work for Mac Virtual PC).

On that subject, I've been wondering why Apple doesn't release a test kit for Safari. I would test against Safari even though it doesn't have a large market share. I test against Opera. I even make sure my pages degrade gracefully in Netscape 4 and IE and Netscape 3. But I'm not going to buy a Mac just to make sure my pages look okay to Mac users. I know 98% of the time Safari will display like Firefox or Opera, but there are noticeable exceptions (especially in styling forms). Wouldn't helping people verify web page compatibility be an opportunity for Apple to ensure the compatibility of their platform?

I think Microsoft has the right idea here.

Re:Helping check compatibility is the right idea by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-01 04:34 · Score: 0

I also wondering why Apple doesn't release mac osx for all pcs
Re:Helping check compatibility is the right idea by CastrTroy · 2006-12-01 04:37 · Score: 2, Informative

If you want to test for compatibility with Safari, then you may want to try Konquerer. They have the same code base AFAIK. However, I've found a few differences between the two browsers, but it's probably about as close as you're going to get to Safari without buying a Mac. If you have a team of developers, and the all need access to one MAC, you can have multiple users logged into a single computer, each with their own VNC session, which means that multiple developers can use the same computer at the same time. Basically you log in each user with fast user switching, and each user starts a VNC Process on a different port. The only downside is that the users have to be logged in again and the VNC process restarted each time the computer is restarted. But I find that if you're just testing Websites, you don't need to restart your computer very much.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:Helping check compatibility is the right idea by morgan_greywolf · 2006-12-01 04:54 · Score: 1

There's always Gtk+ WebCore, which renders pages exactly like WebCore, the renderer used in Safari. The rendering engine works great, but the rest of the thing is somehwat unstable.

Just download a Linux distro, install it in VMWare or QEMU, and there you have it.

--
My blog
Re:Helping check compatibility is the right idea by linuxci · 2006-12-01 04:55 · Score: 1

If you have a team of developers, and the all need access to one MAC, you can have multiple users logged into a single computer, each with their own VNC session, which means that multiple developers can use the same computer at the same time. Basically you log in each user with fast user switching, and each user starts a VNC Process on a different port. The only downside is that the users have to be logged in again and the VNC process restarted each time the computer is restarted. But I find that if you're just testing Websites, you don't need to restart your computer very much. That's what a Mac Mini is very useful for. It's a nice relatively cheap way to ensure that an office has a mac to test websites on.
Re:Helping check compatibility is the right idea by 14CharUsername · 2006-12-01 05:16 · Score: 1

Konqi and safari are different enough that you can't be sure about it. I've personally seen javascript that ran fine on konqi (and FF, Opera and IE) but failed on safari. And for a smaller shop (or someone just making a personal site in his spare time) its hard to justify the purshase of even a mac mini for just 2% of your site's visitors.
Re:Helping check compatibility is the right idea by Richard+W.M.+Jones · 2006-12-01 05:55 · Score: 1

What would have really been good news for web developers would have been if Microsoft had gone a bit further with the standards support and not broken a number of methods developers used to trick IE6.

And even better if they hadn't broken IE7's CSS in a DIFFERENT WAY from IE6. On our client sites we're now serving out a different set of bugfixes to IE6 and IE7 users because unbelievably IE7 is still broken. I only make cursory tests on Safari, KHTML and Opera because I know those will just work the same way as Firefox. WTF not IE???

Rich.

--
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
Re:Helping check compatibility is the right idea by shmlco · 2006-12-01 06:53 · Score: 1

Or run on a 17" Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro, use Safari, Firefox, and Opera, and then use Parallels to test againt IE when needed... ;)

Seriously, it would be a bit difficult to release a test kit for Safari w/o having most of the rest of the OS available.

Although, since we're on that subject, why couldn't MS release an IE6 test application as a single EXE? Requiring yet another XP environment just to test a single application seems like a major case of overkill.

Or are we back to the "IE is inextricably bound to the OS" argument again?

--
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Re:Helping check compatibility is the right idea by mackyrae · 2006-12-01 07:19 · Score: 1

Over 1/5 of traffic to my site is from Safari. The rest is Mozilla/Firefox. Less than one percent even use IE, from what I recall. That was a few months ago. The site's down now until "further notice" (or when I get unlazy enough to make a new layout.

--
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
Re:Helping check compatibility is the right idea by traindirector · 2006-12-01 07:27 · Score: 1

Although, since we're on that subject, why couldn't MS release an IE6 test application as a single EXE?
I don't see why every browser maker doesn't release a cross-platform stripped down version of their rendering engine for developers. Testing between Windows and Mac and even PDAs, cell phones, and other web appliances would be greatly simplified. Web design is not like some other development fields in which there's a certain hardware cost associated with getting into the game to develop for a platform. It's exactly the opposite - there's already a standard out there, and browser makers should be doing whatever it takes to have a better product - i.e. one that can display as many sites as possible. Companies are shooting themselves in the foot by making developers pay for software to test with their browsers - if you can get web designers to do your compatibility work for you, isn't that the easiest way to get your browser to display as many sites as possible? And isn't that what you're aiming for - the best possible web experience for your browser's user?

Unless you have 90% of the browser market, of course - then you can try to make money selling OS licenses so web developers can test on your browser. That's why it's surprising to see this package come from Microsoft and not something with the same concept from Apple...

Seriously, it would be a bit difficult to release a test kit for Safari w/o having most of the rest of the OS available.
You think? I have a strange hunch that the ITMS in the Windows version of iTunes uses the Safari rendering engine. I didn't put in enough effort to get it display other pages, though.
Re:Helping check compatibility is the right idea by Fred_A · 2006-12-01 07:51 · Score: 1

What would have really been good news for web developers would have been if Microsoft had gone a bit further with the standards support and not broken a number of methods developers used to trick IE6.
Each time I read something like this I'm soooo happy that I became bored with the intricacies of web design shortly after HTML+ and never pushed the web design side of the company we started round that time when we toyed with the idea...

That's why you should always use a CMS. That way if MS break their browser in yet another *different* way. Again. You just file a bug. It's not your problem.

Sometimes I think we should have stuck with Gopher. It would have been much more difficult for MS to break (Yes, I know they would have found a way, bastards)

--

May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Re:Helping check compatibility is the right idea by CastrTroy · 2006-12-01 07:53 · Score: 1

Which is basically what I said, that I've found a few differences, but if you really aren't going to buy Mac, then that's as close as you will get.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:Helping check compatibility is the right idea by Fred_A · 2006-12-01 08:15 · Score: 3, Funny

Over 1/5 of traffic to my site is from Safari. The rest is Mozilla/Firefox. Less than one percent even use IE, from what I recall. That was a few months ago.
You have to be kidding. I have checked the stats from one of my sites at http://192.168.1.6/ and not only is all of the traffic from Firefox, it's all from Linux users. *And* they are all on the same machine (which is at 192.168.1.2). I have found the logs to be absolutely homogeneous for months.

So it is absolutely obvious to me that you are making your numbers up and inventing browser names. I await your apologies.

--

May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Re:Helping check compatibility is the right idea by Magus424 · 2006-12-01 08:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

What would have really been good news for web developers would have been if Microsoft had gone a bit further with the standards support and not broken a number of methods developers used to trick IE6.

What would be even better is if these so-called "web developers" actually learned how to properly override things for IE instead of relying on silly hacks.

Conditional comments for one are much more reliable.

--
-- Gone Crazy, Back Later
Re:Helping check compatibility is the right idea by ConceptJunkie · 2006-12-01 09:21 · Score: 1

Your site seems to be down... I would have tried to access it from OSX just to add it to your logs.

BTW, how did you get to register a TLD that's a number?

B1FF

--
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Re:Helping check compatibility is the right idea by EugeneK · 2006-12-01 11:40 · Score: 0

mod up teh funny!
Re:Helping check compatibility is the right idea by mackyrae · 2006-12-01 13:04 · Score: 1

Okay smartass, the visitors were mostly using Windows XP, a few Windows 2000, same amount of Mac users as Safari, and I don't own a damn Mac.

--
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
Re:Helping check compatibility is the right idea by kamatsu · 2006-12-01 14:05 · Score: 1

Just test on Konqueror for Linux. I think they use the same rendering engine, khtml, right? Then it should be roughly the same.
Re:Helping check compatibility is the right idea by irc.goatse.cx+troll · 2006-12-01 20:08 · Score: 1

Define proper? Conditional comments are a proprietary extension created by Microsoft with limited use. You can't even use them inside your css files, which completely makes them worthless for some uses. Namely the project I'm working on now which has multiple layouts offered by simple stylesheet changes. Each stylesheet also needs IE hacks on top of it. With things like the star hack this is as easy as adding a few extra rules. With conditional comments, I have to entirely rework my css include system.

Now the proper solution would be to just write valid html and wait for a browser to come out that renders it right, but I don't think any of us have that kind of patience. Certainly our management departments don't.

--
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
Re:Helping check compatibility is the right idea by Fred_A · 2006-12-02 01:03 · Score: 1

B1FF
Ah, I wonder how many readers here even know who B1FF was. Those were the times... No spam, no clueless users (well fewer at any rate). Real trolls...
Sigh.

On a side note I also wonder how many people tried following the original URL... :)
I know they didn't show up in my stats. :)

--

May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.

web developers? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-01 04:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

This is all-around excellent news for web developers.

For WINDOWS web developers, that is. Still no way to run IE7 in wine, AFAIK

Re:web developers? by derubergeek · 2006-12-01 04:50 · Score: 1, Informative

Mod parent up! I have to wonder if some of the mods even have a basic understanding of English. Pointing out that this wonderful IE6 & IE7 testing system that is such a boon to "web developers" is actually only good for web developers who have Windows is stunningly on-topic.
Personally, I make sure my sites work in Firefox and then field any complaints I might get from the minority of IE6 people I have to deal with by encouraging them to install Firefox. If that's a no go, then I'll actually bother to track down a winbox and hack it to work with IE6 (as I'm really in no mood to shell out $200 to MS just to muck with their subpar browser).
So far, that's been working well. I suspect that the FF installed base is larger than the numbers would indicate... obviously that's at least the case for the base I deal with.

--
Trust me. This is an inactive account. Regardless of what the /. bean counters might report.
Re:web developers? by bberens · 2006-12-01 05:20 · Score: 0

First of all, it would be a waste to mod AC up. Secondly, you're far more likely to see a company code for IE first and then make Firefox 'work' than the other way around. Just because your company, or maybe it's just you, is backwards from the rest of the industry doesn't mean you deserve the same level of fanfare. Unless of course you subscribe to the 'I use linux therefore I am superior to all' theorem of development. In which case, I'm sorry to have wasted my time.

--
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
Re:web developers? by Daath · 2006-12-01 05:22 · Score: 1

Borrow a Windows machine, download the image, use VMWare Workstation and download the Virtual Machine Importer tool to convert the image to VMWare - If you're lucky it doesn't invalidate the activation and you can run VMWare under linux...

--
Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
Re:web developers? by couchslug · 2006-12-01 05:26 · Score: 1

I have not tried this, but VMware Converter supposedly supports converting VPC images into VMware images.
That would let you run them in VMware on Linux.

http://blog.adglobe.net/2006/11/01/vmware-converte r-30-easy-way-to-create-virtual-machines-on-your-c omputer/

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:web developers? by NineNine · 2006-12-01 05:27 · Score: 1

Personally, I make sure my sites work in Firefox and then field any complaints I might get from the minority of IE6 people I have to deal with by encouraging them to install Firefox.

Well, that's great for your personal site, but for those of us who actually have to make a living from the web, this is very useful.
Re:web developers? by molarmass192 · 2006-12-01 05:46 · Score: 1

you're far more likely to see a company code for IE first and then make Firefox 'work'

That used to be true a few years ago. I'm seeing a lot code now starting in Firefox, then being tweaked for IE. It makes sense since if it works in FF, odds are it will work in IE, the inverse not being so cut and dry. The reason is simple, FF is far stricter about standards than IE. On that note, I'll give MS props for moving towards more standards compliance in IE7. If IE6 could just die, life would be much easier for web devs.

--

Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
Re:web developers? by proxy318 · 2006-12-01 06:22 · Score: 1

There is, actually (at least the rendering engine) http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/news/28

--
Saying your "phone ran out of batteries" is like saying your "car ran out of gas tanks".
Re:web developers? by choongiri · 2006-12-01 06:55 · Score: 1

You really should check out ies4linux.

It's an extremely clever set of scripts that pulls the necessary components of various versions of IE from microsoft, and configures wine so that it all just works, making setting up IE to run under wine the work of a few minutes. Whilst still in beta, version 2.1 includes support for IE 7.

(Actually all it includes at the moment is the rendering engine wrapped in an IE 6 interface - but for web development the rendering engine is what we need to see in action the most.)
Re:web developers? by el_gordo101 · 2006-12-01 09:08 · Score: 1

If IE6 could just die, life would be much easier for web devs

I'm still waiting for the one asshat Netscape 4.x user we have that keeps bitching about how our site is "broken" to die.

--
TODO: Insert witty sig
Re:web developers? by derubergeek · 2006-12-01 12:37 · Score: 1

I'm seeing a lot code now starting in Firefox, then being tweaked for IE. It makes sense since if it works in FF, odds are it will work in IE...
Glad to see there's a least a few web developers around here with some common sense. I do something similar to you - I code for Safari and figure it will work in Firefox. Then I check it in FF - if need be, I make corrections [Safari ain't perfect]. And then I field the few (if any) complaints I get from IE. Of course, I avoid doing things that I know IE6 sucks at - for example, PNGs with transparency layers or PNGs with embedded color profiles. That's a sure way to have something look completely abysmal in IE6 [IE7 is certainly much better].
I somewhat question the technical savvy of the people who assumed that I'm just some lone hack and they're the "real" developers. Granted, my target audience tends to be under 50,000 actual users for any given system [sometimes as narrow as several hundred], but doing things this way seems to work out better for me. Then again, it's much easier these days to get people to use FF due to the massive spy/adware problems that were so prevalent with IE...
(Don't you just LOVE tweaking special stylesheets to work with IE? Joy....)

--
Trust me. This is an inactive account. Regardless of what the /. bean counters might report.
Re:web developers? by derubergeek · 2006-12-01 12:52 · Score: 1

First of all, it would be a waste to mod AC up...
Why is that? Maybe I'm not enough of a karma whore. I view moderation as a way of separating the wheat from the chaff. I really don't give a rip who the author happens to be - AC or not.

--
Trust me. This is an inactive account. Regardless of what the /. bean counters might report.
Re:web developers? by bWareiWare.co.uk · 2006-12-04 06:15 · Score: 1

Actually the genius behind IEs4Linux has a working method to get the IE7 rendering running under wine (all be it in the IE6 interface).

It isn't actually too hard, but I won't try and explain it again here.

It is stable and matches IE7 in the ACID2 test so defiantly useful for some quick testing before firing up a full VM.

I'm confused... by PFI_Optix · 2006-12-01 04:23 · Score: 4, Funny

I can't seem to come up with a way to apply "It's a trap!", the borg, or a chair reference to this story.

I know...ITSAHOAX!

It must be...

--
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.

Re:I'm confused... by DerGeist · 2006-12-01 04:29 · Score: 1

Perhaps at first glance, but it could still easily be a trap. The IE6 might, say, render webpages purposely incorrectly so that when viewed in IE6 in reality they look quite different, forcing people to still upgrade to IE7 and thereby install WGA-SuperSpywareDeluxeCeilingKitten edition.

The Borg is tougher to apply, but perhaps the IE6 has linking capabilities to connect with other VirtualPC's running the version and create a control network across...ok, so maybe that one's a bit of a stretch.
The chair-throwing could be Ballmer violently opposing to certain sites being rendered properly in IE6 and IE7.
Re:I'm confused... by MikeFM · 2006-12-01 07:33 · Score: 1

IT'll probably work (downloading now) but it's months late and the best solution they can come up with seems to take about 1.5 GB of hdd space. Damn lot of space for downloading a browser.

--
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.

IE6 Via FF Extensions? by moore.dustin · 2006-12-01 04:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

If you have IE7 and FF2, can you test for IE6 through a Firefox extension. I know it is possible with just FF2 and IE6, but I am not sure if the extension uses whatever version of IE you have installed or if is made to be IE6. Thanks for any input

--
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.

Re:IE6 Via FF Extensions? by linuxci · 2006-12-01 04:29 · Score: 4, Informative

No the IE tab extension is not specific to IE6 and will therefore run IE7 in a Firefox tab if IE6 is installed. There's various hacks to run IE6 and IE7 side by side and they're not approved by MS so it's possible that you could be running IE6 with some IE7 libraries and then the result would not be a perfect IE6 install and some things may differ.
Re:IE6 Via FF Extensions? by moore.dustin · 2006-12-01 04:37 · Score: 2, Informative

Oh well that would have been nice would it not? Generally speaking, I still develop for FF and IE6 with compliant code and I have yet to have a problem in IE7 when I do that. It seems like IE7 pretty much renders the same as FF2 on all of the major CSS classes. When you get into some of the crazier things then you need to be looking much more carefully. By the look of all my sites stats though, we will all be developing for IE6 for at least 2 years and even then a safari-esque %age will still be using IE6.

--
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
Re:IE6 Via FF Extensions? by joshier · 2006-12-01 04:42 · Score: 0

http://ietab.mozdev.org/
just in case
Re:IE6 Via FF Extensions? by gaspyy · 2006-12-01 05:04 · Score: 3, Informative

You must be confused...

There is a Firefox extension (maybe more) called IE Tab that will allow Firefox to use IE rendering engine in one tab. Pretty cool for testing.

However, as far as I know, IE Tab and all other similar extensions, will use whatever IE engine is available on the system (mshtml.dll I think). It's precisely because of the way IE works and it's integrated in the OS that you can't have multiple versions of IE installed at once.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Re:IE6 Via FF Extensions? by bryxal · 2006-12-01 05:23 · Score: 1

Haha IE6 standards compliant mode.... thats funny... ouf let me catch my breath
Re:IE6 Via FF Extensions? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-01 05:55 · Score: 0

If you don't want to use a virtual machine, what I did was upgrade to IE7 and use
a stand-alone version of IE6, I believe the version I use I got from:
http://browsers.evolt.org/?ie/32bit/standalone

IE6 stand-alone is a little buggy, but I find this works fine for testing rendering..
Re:IE6 Via FF Extensions? by automatix · 2006-12-01 09:24 · Score: 1

There's various hacks to run IE6 and IE7 side by side and they're not approved by MS ...
And they don't work very well, since IE pulls in all sorts of other libraries that are upgraded. Filters(Alpha+PNG) support, XML parsing are two key ones that will be b0rked in IE6 with IE7 installed.

Bugs! by Petskull · 2006-12-01 04:26 · Score: 0, Flamebait

50% more buggy software- Free!

More of a move against VMWare by unPlugged-2.0 · 2006-12-01 04:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

I think this is more of a move towards VMWare than it is for helping out Web Developers.

Let's look at why? The majority of web developers I know develop on the mac anyways. I don't see why Microsoft would really care so much about this niche crowd who always beat up on MS. No - What this does is it gives them an opportunity to gain some favor in the community and also push another product which microsoft is so good at doing.

Not being paranoid but I am just thinking about what makes sense for Microsoft as a business. They really want to push VirtualPC and you can see this in their partnerships with Xen and the feeling that they are loosing massive market share to VMWare (which they are btw).

So this is more of a counter with the guise of backward compatibility.

If they really wanted to help out Web Developers they would have simply included a IE6 mode in IE7 as an update that lets you switch between the rendering engines. I am sure this would be possible and also much easier to a web developer.

--
Software Defined RFID - The Rifidi Emulator

Re:More of a move against VMWare by davidmcg · 2006-12-01 04:43 · Score: 1

I have no doubt whatsoever that one of the reasons for this move was to help push Virtual PC, although VirtualPC has been free for a while you've always needed to pay for an OS for it. This time limited XP image is also a good way to give people a chance to try out the potential of Virtual PC. However, whatever Microsoft's motives are, it's still a good news for Windows web devs particularly those on Win2k as long as MS haven't done anything to stop this image working on that platform.
Of course if the main purpose was to ensure as many people could test IE7 as possible they'd also make a VMWare compatible image so Mac and Linux users could test. However, ultimately that probably is too much to ask as it'd give Linux and Mac users a free time limited licence for XP, they ultimately want people to develop primarily on Windows so that'd never happen.
Re:More of a move against VMWare by NineNine · 2006-12-01 04:51 · Score: 1

The majority of web developers I know develop on the mac anyways.

Huh? Don't they have to test their stuff to see if it works for the other 96% of the world? And, how do you develop things like .Net on a Mac?
Re:More of a move against VMWare by tlhIngan · 2006-12-01 05:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

Of course if the main purpose was to ensure as many people could test IE7 as possible they'd also make a VMWare compatible image so Mac and Linux users could test. However, ultimately that probably is too much to ask as it'd give Linux and Mac users a free time limited licence for XP, they ultimately want people to develop primarily on Windows so that'd never happen.

Isn't the Virtual PC hard drive image format open (really open - royalty free, do-anything-you-want)? In which case, all VMWare has to do is really just support .vhd files in their drive emulation (and every other piece of software that wants to run the image, e.g., bochs, qemu, plex86, etc). Just like VMWare opened their disk image format, Virtual PC has as well (and I believe the image formats are derived from the original VirtualPC (MacOS) version... so while Virtual PC/Windows and Virtual PC/MacOS (PowerPC) are completely different products, they use compatible formats).
Re:More of a move against VMWare by gordyf · 2006-12-01 05:32 · Score: 1

I develop web apps on a Mac. I use Parallels to test in IE6 and IE7. I also don't develop in .Net, so that's not really a concern for me.
Re:More of a move against VMWare by version5 · 2006-12-01 06:10 · Score: 1

Riiight -- most web developers you know develop on a mac, so therefore all web developers must develop on a mac. Makes perfect sense! But if you are developing on a mac, you are probably designing web sites or maybe doing a Rails or php app, not working on the UI for a large enterprise system where developers run a local instance of the development environment on their own machines. Among those people, no-one I know runs a mac, and when your app fails to work on a browser, its a serious problem for a customer. And its not only UI developers who need to test against IE7 and IE6, the QA team needs to test it too. This saves people from having to have two boxes just for different versions of IE.

--
"It's Dot Com!"
Re:More of a move against VMWare by Ed+Avis · 2006-12-01 06:12 · Score: 1

Both IE6 and IE7 run under Wine with a bit of fiddling... I see no need to mess around with virtual PC images and running a whole Windows instance. A Wine instance is much more hygienic.

--
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Re:More of a move against VMWare by aaronl · 2006-12-01 06:14 · Score: 1

The majority aren't using .NET to do web development. I would guess that this means that they simply don't bother with .NET, and so don't have to develop for it, or test with it.
Re:More of a move against VMWare by Thundersnatch · 2006-12-01 06:39 · Score: 2, Informative

The majority of web developers I know develop on the mac anyways.

Exactly zero of the dozens of web developers I know use Macs. They all use Windows or Linux. They actually develop programs that generate websites, usually in .NET, Java, PHP, etc.

Only the web designers I know use Macs. Graphic/web designers are not the same developers, despite what they may think. They generally have the ability to make sites pretty, and tweak the layouts generated by the programs developers create. Most designers cannot build software at any reasonable level of compentency.

Huge problems arise when designers try to act as developers, and of course vice-versa. People with good skills in both areas are extremely rare. It isn't 1997 anymore. Back then, the ability to generate pretty HTML and graphics made you a "webmaster." But the bar has been raised. These days, any good website needs both good developers (programmers) and good graphic/UI designers.

But anyway, I think you probably meant "web developers" := "people that make the site look good," rather than "people that build the logic behind the website." But in most job postings I've seen, "developer" very specifically means programmer, while "designer" means UI layout and graphics work.
Re:More of a move against VMWare by jZnat · 2006-12-01 08:04 · Score: 1

Since when does 96% of the world use IE? Firefox (Gecko), Opera, and Safari (WebKit/KHTML) are all available for Mac OS X, so you get to test out your site in all the common HTML renderring engines. IE is the only thing not available, and Mac web developers can use Parallels to run Windows with IE.

--
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
Re:More of a move against VMWare by imemyself · 2006-12-01 08:04 · Score: 1

VMware Workstation can import/convert Virtual PC configurations/images to their format. I think v5.0 was the first that could do that. Additionally, if I really wanted to, I could just set up a Ghost (or equiv.) session between an empty VMware VM and this VPC one. Unless they've thrown in any magic in the copy of XP to stop that.

--
Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
Re:More of a move against VMWare by ben+there... · 2006-12-01 10:21 · Score: 2, Informative

The majority of web developers I know develop on the mac anyways.

To put it nicely, you could not be more wrong.

Most web developers (coders), as well as web designers (graphics/layout), use Windows and test in IE6. They'd be crazy not to, considering the large 85%+ of web users that use IE, and all the tweaking necessary to get sites to look right in IE6.

Additionally, a larger percentage of web developers design sites first in Firefox compared to the rest of the population*. No more than 20-30%, but that's higher than the 10-15% of everybody else. Even then, with those developers focusing on standards, they follow up with tweaking for IE6. Meaning they still use Windows (2000/XP) for that.

* See W3Schools.com's stats for one example
Re:More of a move against VMWare by IAmGarethAdams · 2006-12-02 00:51 · Score: 1

Our company (of web developers) is currently 1/2 Mac, 1/3 Windows and 1/6 Linux, and we're looking at moving to all-Mac for our PHP and Rails development.

Our designers, interestingly, mostly use Windows as they both Photoshop the page designs and then build the pages. Which means they need to be using (mainly) Firefox and then (for finishing touches) IE.

I don't know how the developers you know work, and it's probably completely different to us. But in any case, I try not to generalise my situation to the world
Re:More of a move against VMWare by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-04 03:39 · Score: 0

> The majority of web developers I know develop on the mac anyways.

You mean designers right? I've met 2 _developers_ writing code for the internet on a mac. I've been in the business since 1994. One was a flash developer, that was really a graphic designer, trying to program, the other isn't really a developer of site code, he works on his own site on the mac.

The only people I've ever seen using a mac to do actual web development are the graphic design people that make the pictures and the flash/director people that do animation. None of them are really "developers". They write some html and make pretty pictures which they hand over to people that write software. Some are animators. I'm not diminishing any of it, it's just a different skillset than software development. For some reason the creative folks gravitate to the Mac. They sure are pretty.

I am an internet software developer and I've never used a mac professionally. Then again, I don't make pretty pictures or lay out web pages either. I leave that to the artist types who are good at it (and not colorblind).

-AC

It's way easier by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-01 04:33 · Score: 4, Informative

I just learnt this from the German IT news site heise.de http://www.heise.de/newsticker/foren/go.shtml?read =1&msg_id=11722667&forum_id=109109

On following sites you can test your webpage via an online renderer

For IE 6 and 7: http://ipinfo.info/netrenderer/
For Safari: http://www.danvine.com/icapture/
For Firefox and many others: http://browsershots.org/

hth

Re:It's way easier by SnapShot · 2006-12-01 04:57 · Score: 1

That is increadible. I never even thought to ask if something like this exists. I've been so tiered of logging out of OS-X, logging into Bootcamp and trying to see how badly I misinterpreted IE's rendering. Thank you for the links.

--
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
Re:It's way easier by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-01 05:02 · Score: 0

You could always use Parallels instead of Bootcamp.
Re:It's way easier by pe1chl · 2006-12-01 05:04 · Score: 1

This is not very useful. Not only is it incredibly slow, but also you cannot test anything related to :hover, for example a menu system.

I know, because I wanted to test the site at work for IE7 compatability and we do not have XP.
Re:It's way easier by tb3 · 2006-12-01 05:54 · Score: 1

Bootcamp? Good grief! Go download the Crossover Mac beta, and install IE 6 from inside. Crossover does all the work to download and install IE, and even simulates a reboot when finished. Now, just run IE from your desktop.

--
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
Re:It's way easier by Selanit · 2006-12-01 10:43 · Score: 1

Online renderers (which basically take a screenshot of the page in a particular browser and then show it to you) can be very useful for seeing how your page looks in a particular browser.

However, they're useless at determining how your page functions in a particular browser. If you're using, say, menus that appear/disappear using CSS, you can't test them in one of those. Ditto for any JavaScript - and with more and more sites developing AJAX-based pages that update only particular portions of the page, that's an increasing concern.

So basically, they're a useful tool if you're concerned about basic appearances, but any more advanced testing will require a real copy of the browser you want to test.

IE4Linux by Seb+C. · 2006-12-01 04:34 · Score: 1

Now you can also get your vista/XP whatever with IE7 , and have a virtual PC (vmware or whatever MS calls their stuff) runinng an linux image, that have ie4linux installed ...
Then you have IE7 on your main windows machines (god.. did i say windows is your primary OS ?) and test backward compatibility with IE 6, IE5.5 and another i don't remember the number within your neat little Linux image through wine...
May be easier than having a win2k computer somewhere...

Check it here :
http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/page/Main_Page

As long as it's not an Intel Mac... by traindirector · 2006-12-01 04:34 · Score: 1

Unsurprisingly, Microsoft has announced that they have no plans to bring Virtual PC to the Intel-based Mac, so I don't imagine there would be a way to run this image on them.

Owners of shiny and semi-new G5s might still be in luck though...

Re:As long as it's not an Intel Mac... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-01 06:11 · Score: 0

Unsurprisingly, Microsoft has announced that they have no plans to bring Virtual PC to the Intel-based Mac, so I don't imagine there would be a way to run this image on them.
I was going to point out that VMWare can read VPC images.
But -having just searched VMWare's site- I realize that doesn't help much since there isn't a VMWare client for the Macintosh.
According to the Parallel's website FAQ, "You can use disk image save/restore software like Acronis TrueImage or Norton Ghost to export the operating system from third-party VM and import it to Parallels" so maybe that would work. You would still need a VPC or VMWare to make the initial disk image, though. Seems like an awful lot of work, though.

MS doesn't even test its own apps with IE7 by pupstah · 2006-12-01 04:35 · Score: 1

Their very widely used retail software was just found to have a strong compatibility issue with IE7. Processing credit cards no less. Way to catch that on the way out.

--

-- pupkick

Re:MS doesn't even test its own apps with IE7 by NineNine · 2006-12-01 04:59 · Score: 1

The other big one, Quickbooks Point of Sale, is having the same problem. I have no idea what the specific problem is. It must have something to do with the gateway software.

Firefox is simpler by davidmcg · 2006-12-01 04:35 · Score: 4, Informative

A few people have asked me if Firefox needs to be run in a virtual machine to test different versions. The answer to that is no, so I wrote a quick guide to how I run multiple versions of Firefox on the same machine.

Prior to the release by Microsoft of this VM image I got round the legal requirement to buy an extra XP licence by running XP with IE6 and running the free to download (at the time) betas of Vista in a virtual machine for IE7 testing.

Re:Firefox is simpler by 0racle · 2006-12-01 04:47 · Score: 1

Most development places are going to have valid licenses and media for 2000. The easiest way to get around buying another version of windows would be to use that in a VM to test your page in IE 6 (and 5 if you want to install another instance) and use XP or Vista on your desktop, or throw it in a VM, and use it to test with IE 7. That definitely seems easier then downloading this VPC image every 4-6 months or whatever it seems that MS is doing here.

--
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."

Boot Camp by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-01 04:39 · Score: 0

You could, of course, use Apple's Boot Camp to install XP and then install Virtual PC onto XP.

Re:Boot Camp by traindirector · 2006-12-01 04:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

You could, of course, use Apple's Boot Camp to install XP and then install Virtual PC onto XP.
And pull the XP license for the main XP install from magical fairy land?

Doing so would totally void the point of the package, which is to provide a free, licensed XP install in Virtual PC for web development.
Re:Boot Camp by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-01 04:50 · Score: 0

Considering that downloading and installing these images will almost certainly require WGA validation (like most Microsoft 'free' downloadables) I think it's safe to assume that they're 'free' as long as you already have a valid XP licence.
Re:Boot Camp by mrchaotica · 2006-12-01 04:58 · Score: 1

downloading and installing these images will almost certainly require WGA validation

... Which, of course, doesn't mean a damn thing to those of us who were smart enough to stick with W2K for our legacy not-*nix-compatible-software needs. : )

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

Why bother? MS should use Opera or Firefox instead by SgtChaireBourne · 2006-12-01 04:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

Maybe MS is somehow is benefiting from the endless cycles of MSIE-based spyware, viruses, and general security problems. If not, then it (and we) would be much better off if MS should drop MSIE completely. Where does MS come out ahead financially? MSIE is probably the largest single public relations problem as well as one of largest security and productivity problems that MS produces these days.

The Netscape/DOJ v MS has been over for years. MSIE wastes our time, it wastes MS time. There's simply no need for anyone, even MS, to be wasting resources with MSIE. The public certainly has no reason to let MS foist on them such low quality security hole masquerading as a useful application. Drop MSIE or let users uninstall it completely.

Firefox and Opera are what people are using anyway. Go with the flow and invest the resources that would have gone into trying to keep life in MSIE go somewhere they'll actually have a chance of doing good.

--
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.

so microsoft is providing a free XP image? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-01 04:47 · Score: 1, Insightful

Doesn't this invalidate WPA and all other copy protection crap with XP?

Re:so microsoft is providing a free XP image? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-01 06:32 · Score: 0

No

Quoth TFA:
"The VPC image runs in a virtual machine that offers all of the functionality of a full IE6 installation without giving it any access to its host machine's hard drive, registry, etc."

For all the MS apologists... by sootman · 2006-12-01 04:47 · Score: 1

... who keep saying IE doesn't have its hooks buried deep in Windows: this is pretty much proof, is it not? I've got several versions of Photoshop, from 3 to CS, on my W2K box at home. I've also got several versions of Firefox (and Firebird, and Phoenix) as well. Plus Netscape 3.* And a few Acrobat Readers. I've even got MSIE2--back when it was a *gasp* standalone app. And a bunch more apps I could list if I cared to. My XP box at work has Office 2003 and the beta of 2007.

So: MS has to go out of their way to "let" people run more than one instance of Internet Explorer?** Two conclusions: a) why would this be so hard, if IE weren't so ingrained in the OS? b) And is this the "innovation" Scoble was talking about? "Letting" me run programs?

* I remember an old trick from back when NS3 was new: I knew it would crash sometimes, so if I had a lot of windows open, instead of opening another, I'd launch another instance of the app. One instance could crash, taking its windows with it, but the other would be fine, as if nothing ever happened. Now *that's* programming!

** Besides all the technical issues--they don't even charge for the fscking thing! It's not like you bought the "upgrade" version at a discount, compared to buying a full copy of the new version at full retail price. I understand if they don't want me running Win95 anymore if I bought the upgrade version of Win98. But if I buy the full versions of both, shouldn't I be able to run them both? This is like saying if I get the CD, I can't listen to the tape any more. And the tape and CD were both free to begin with.

Oh, wait, let me guess--since I didn't pay for them, I have no right to decide how I want to use them?

--
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.

Re:For all the MS apologists... by 0racle · 2006-12-01 04:52 · Score: 1

who keep saying IE doesn't have its hooks buried deep in Windows: this is pretty much proof, is it not?
No it is not. IE will install to one place only. If an older version is there it will upgrade it, if a newer version is there, the installer exits telling you you already have a newer version.

--
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
Re:For all the MS apologists... by Reziac · 2006-12-01 05:01 · Score: 1

IE5.00 would look for older versions of IE, and had an option to preserve them in a runnable state. Doubtless useful for web developers, tho it escapes me why anyone would run IE3/IE4 when the far-better IE5.00 was available, and even ran better on the same setups. Unlike earlier/later versions, IE5.00 wasn't crashy, nor a resource or memory hog.

By preference, I still use old NS3, partly because of flexibility such as you describe. Install and run as many versions and copies of versions as you like, and even make them all share the same cache and mail files, no problem! Or don't even properly install them, but drag installed copies around on a CD and dump 'em onto any machine, and everything still works.

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:For all the MS apologists... by sootman · 2006-12-01 07:57 · Score: 1

"IE will install to one place only."

Sounds like a very artificial limitation. (If you say it's for security, I'll die laughing. Same response if your answer is "share components, save disk space.") And it can't be just dragged around? Hmm...

OK, I fired up Parallels and launched my dual-boot 98/2k image. C:\program files\internet explorer\iexplore.exe (win98) shows a 64k file, version 4.72.3110.0; e:\program files\internet explorer\iexplore.exe is about 60k and shows version 5.0.2920.0. Clicking on either launches IE 5. My understanding is (long story short) that iexplore.exe just grabs a bunch of stuff from around the system and turns it into a browser. The entire 'Internet Explorer' folder on my XP box (version 6) is only about 2 MB, over half of which is plugins and the internet connection wizard.

By the way, I've also got MSIE2 on that box. (Dragged the folder over from an old NT4 machine.) Runs at the same time as MSIE6 just fine, and the executable is 725k. Man, the IE team sure did some amazing work, packing 4 versions worth of new features into an executable 1/10 the size! :-p

No matter how you slice it, something odd is going on. What's so special about MSIE that it doesn't look or behave like nearly every other application released for Windows in the last 10 years, including previous versions of the same app???

--
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.

unprecedented evile never sleeps/forgets... or by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-01 04:49 · Score: 0

becomes easier?

as opposed to becoming a member of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate? really no contest/question?

from previous post: many demand corepirate nazi execrable stop abusing US

we the peepoles?

how is it allowed? just like corn passing through a bird's butt eye gas.

all they (the felonious nazi execrable) want is... everything. at what cost to US?

for many of US, the only way out is up.

don't forget, for each of the creators' innocents harmed (in any way) there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/US as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile will not be available after the big flash occurs.

'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi life0cidal glowbull warmongering execrable.

some of US should consider ourselves very fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate.

it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc....

as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis.

concern about the course of events that will occur should the corepirate nazi life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order.

'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

Re:unprecedented evile never sleeps/forgets... or by EugeneK · 2006-12-01 12:52 · Score: 0

intriguing...subscribe...newsletter...

Re:Why bother? MS should use Opera or Firefox inst by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-01 04:49 · Score: 0

Just to get msn as the default search tool...(and some other 'quick link')
Simple as that.

Don't test sites on browsers by Stormwatch · 2006-12-01 04:49 · Score: 4, Funny

Test your sites on the W3C's validators . That's the only testing you should EVER do.

--
Circumcision is child abuse.

Re:Don't test sites on browsers by gsnedders · 2006-12-01 04:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

The validator isn't perfect. Checking it manually against the specifications used is the only way to ensure compliance.
Re:Don't test sites on browsers by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-01 05:05 · Score: 1, Insightful

Test your sites on the W3C's validators . That's the only testing you should EVER do.

Yes, but in the real world, explaining to your website visitors that microsoft doesn't follow web standards and that is why the website looks crappy to them doesn't go over very well with senior management.

If you're running a business, you need to test your website with browsers that have a large market share.
Re:Don't test sites on browsers by Shohat · 2006-12-01 05:13 · Score: 3, Informative

Too bad W3C Validators dont work correctly.
And unlike some imaginary world you wish us to build websites for, in this world most users use IE. Websites are built for users, not webmasters. So a webmaster must make sure that his website is rendered correctly on the user's computer and keep the ideology to himself or find another job.

--
My Starcraft 2 Blog
Re:Don't test sites on browsers by gaspyy · 2006-12-01 05:13 · Score: 1, Redundant

I wish the real world was that easy.

Have you ever designed something for a major company?

You can't get away with designing for standards and ignoring everything else.

Case in point, I maintain the site for a health insurance provider. One of their customer (also a major corporation) was having troubles managing their account online. They sent a screenshot. It was a javascript error; the browser was IE4 running in 16bit color. The error was due to the fact that one of the programmers had used getElementById() without checking first if it's supported; he thought since 99% use IE6 or firefox or opera, who cares about IE4?

Usually I make sure everything I do works in IE7, IE6, IE5, Firefox, Safari and Opera.
Re:Don't test sites on browsers by Xugumad · 2006-12-01 05:14 · Score: 1

No, it isn't. It's the first thing to do, certainly, but not the only test. No browser is 100% standards compliant, and knowing which bits of the standards you can safely use is a nightmare.

Now, if people are finding new browsers frequently break their sites, I'd suggest they have some serious robustness issues (I work on a 300 page web application, which had only cosmetic issues on IE7, and required under an hour to correct). People seem concerningly unwilling to compromise between stability, future safety, and appearance.
Re:Don't test sites on browsers by NineNine · 2006-12-01 05:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

You obviously don't pay your bills with web development.
Re:Don't test sites on browsers by traindirector · 2006-12-01 05:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

Test your sites on the W3C's validators . That's the only testing you should EVER do.
I'm hoping the parent was aiming to be modded Funny. Writing HTML and CSS that complies with web standards is easy. Making sites that render correctly in the browsers that 98% of Internet users is wherein comes one of the major challenges in web design.

My general strategy is to spend a certain amount of time writing compliant XHTML 1.1, then spending 5 times that amount of time making it work in IE. This is not atypical.

Unless you're doing a really simple site, browser checks are the mark of success. Passing the W3C validation at the end is like a ticker tape parade celebrating the fact that you complied to web standards while somehow getting it to render correctly in IE.
Re:Don't test sites on browsers by bunratty · 2006-12-01 05:17 · Score: 1

All the W3C validator can do is point out syntax errors in HTML or CSS. It can't point out semantic errors, or show which JavaScript or DOM code won't work in one browser or another. Validating is a great thing to do, but you really do need to test your site in multiple browsers to ensure it does work in those browsers.

--
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Re:Don't test sites on browsers by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-01 05:23 · Score: 0

WOW, I sure as hell wouldn't want to touch your C code. You only check wether it compiles there too?
Re:Don't test sites on browsers by nobodyman · 2006-12-01 05:31 · Score: 1

Cool. And when web application doesn't work for my client, and they complain that AOL users, IE6 users, and Mac users are unable to purchase products from their website, I'll just tell them that it's not my problem because a W3C validator says so. While we're at it, I'll use the same argument during my exit interview.

Welcome to the real world. The W3C doesn't pay me, so occasionally I'll need to concede a few idiological points to the folks that do.
Re:Don't test sites on browsers by HammerHead2000 · 2006-12-01 05:39 · Score: 1

That's the sort of head in the sand approach that gets you sacked. I'm all for encouraging Microsoft to support standards properly, but lets face it, for every site that's broken on IE there will be 1000 others that work just fine and your site will lose traffic and business because users see your site as broken.

I want my site to conform to standards, and look right in all major browsers. Contrary to popular belief, this is perfectly possible giving the best of all worlds.
Re:Don't test sites on browsers by pe1chl · 2006-12-01 05:42 · Score: 1

That is like saying that you should validate your C programs using gcc -Wall and then, when they are syntactically correct, do not need to test them for correct functionality.
Re:Don't test sites on browsers by rapidmax · 2006-12-01 05:59 · Score: 1

This comment is optimized for IE7 with 1920x1600 pixel

Re:Why bother? MS should use Opera or Firefox inst by Timesprout · 2006-12-01 04:51 · Score: 1

The corporate intranet is obviously something you have never heard of.

--
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe

Write code for standards not for Virtual Machine by Marcion · 2006-12-01 04:52 · Score: 1

I am a web developer and I write pages to follow the W3 and other standards. If it follows the standards and looks right in one IE and looks right in the standards-compliant browsers, then I'm done quite frankly.

Running a virtual Windows is pointless and a load of hassle, for what benefit exactly? Just have one old box with IE6 still on.

So "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn".

--
My little Linux and tech blog

great by LWATCDR · 2006-12-01 04:57 · Score: 1

So now I can keep coding for the badly broken IE6 as well as the less broken IE7.. Happy happy joy joy.
Hey everyone that can not update to IE7 please download Firefox and or Opera NOW.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.

Re:Why bother? MS should use Opera or Firefox inst by Jerry+Coffin · 2006-12-01 04:58 · Score: 1

Maybe MS is somehow is benefiting from the endless cycles of MSIE-based spyware, viruses, and general security problems. If not, then it (and we) would be much better off if MS should drop MSIE completely.

MS really wasn't lying when they said IE was now part of the OS (or at least the shell). For example, if you open "My Computer" and type something like "www.microsoft.com" into its address bar, you'll get essentially the same result as if you had started by opening a window that openly stated it was IE.

Much of what a typical user sees as "Windows" is really IE. You might easily be right that MS and their customers would be better off without it, but MS would have to do a fair amount of work on a new shell to get rid of it entirely, at least from XP. I'm not sure about the shell in Vista, but I doubt it's changed drastically in this respect.

--
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.

Re:Why bother? MS should use Opera or Firefox inst by ScentCone · 2006-12-01 04:59 · Score: 1

Firefox and Opera are what people are using anyway.

If by "using" you mean "in a small minority of the traffic that I see on the many sites I track," then, sure, I guess you're right. But you're not, of course. About 90% of the traffic I see, and about 94% of the revenue I see created, comes from people using MSIE - typically v6+. Wishful thinking doesn't make it otherwise.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.

Download IE6 standalone by u2boy_nl · 2006-12-01 05:00 · Score: 2, Informative

Or you can just download IE3 / IE4 / IE5 /IE6 here, and run it without the need to install anything.

I have no idea if this is legal or anything, but i do know that it's a very simple solution that works...

Re:Download IE6 standalone by se7en11 · 2006-12-01 07:37 · Score: 1

Just downloaded 5.5 and 6.0 and they seems to render the sites as they would. Only thing I noticed is that they do not keep session values or cookies. Still useful. Thanks!

What would be nicer by xoyoyo · 2006-12-01 05:00 · Score: 1

Would be for the browser in Windows to be self-contained enough to run as an application. Then you could have multiple versions because they wouldn't all be reliant on things like msie.dll in the OS layer.

Microsoft could easily achieve that by unbundling the web browser from the OS.

What, did I just say something stupid?

Re:What would be nicer by NineNine · 2006-12-01 05:20 · Score: 0

What, did I just say something stupid?

Well, kinda'. The browser being tied closely with the OS is part of what makes Windows development so simple. For example, I just got finished with a custom app for my own business that uses IE very heavily. I'm not aware that there's even a COM object for Firefox or Mozilla. There are tons and tons of apps that use IE very heavily because it's integrated so well.

People (like myself) like Windows precisely because everything is integrated and fits together relatively nicely.
Re:What would be nicer by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-01 05:50 · Score: 0

It is also the reason that there are so many security flaws in Windows. Everything is integrated too much.
Re:What would be nicer by NineNine · 2006-12-01 05:58 · Score: 1

True. It's a tradeoff. Nothing's perfect. Most business owners that I know personally know that it's a tradeoff, and stick with Winders because in many cases, running with potential security problems is better than not running at all.
Re:What would be nicer by xoyoyo · 2006-12-01 09:41 · Score: 1

I was making a hyper-oblique reference to the antitrust suit. Which I think is still legit, btw.

There's nothing to stop Microsoft providing a rendering engine for developers' use without tying the browser to the OS. The whole idea that you have to pay for two OS licenses (or had to, given the point of the story) just to use two different web browsers seems upside down.
Re:What would be nicer by drsmithy · 2006-12-01 22:27 · Score: 1

What, did I just say something stupid?
Yes. In particular, you seem to miss the point of shared code and ignore that every other platform (now) has an equivalent to IE.
Re:What would be nicer by xoyoyo · 2006-12-01 23:14 · Score: 1

I'm fully aware of the joys of shared code. I'm also aware of the gotchas that shared code causes: from failed dependencies to this kind of absurd "well you can't have this version of the app until you buy a new OS license" (or an old version, which is what TFA says).

You seem to have missed the reference to the Microsoft antitrust suit that was doing so well until the chimp came to power. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_S tates_v._Microsoft&oldid=91340321 The US govt wanted Microsoft to unbundle IE *in exactly the way I describe* - there's nothing magical about Internet Explorer the application; there's nothing magical about msie.dll that requires a *whole new OS install* to support a different version.

As to "every other platform (now) has an equivalent to IE" - that's only partly true. "Every" platform, which I presume you mean to be the popular platforms of Mac and Linux desktop managers such as Gnome and KDE, certainly have OS-level HTML renderers, but they're all open source so if I want to build a previous version I can. I can even give my lib/app a different name from the built in one and *run them at the same time on the same machine without incurring an additional license fee* which is the point you seem to have missed. Until Microsoft came up with this generous over you had to pay twice for something that "every other platform" gives for free.
Re:What would be nicer by xoyoyo · 2006-12-01 23:34 · Score: 1

Oh gee, looky here: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/02/02 52239

*Free* XP images? by cbhacking · 2006-12-01 05:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

So wait... if I'm understanding this correctly, the idea here is free images of XP. Sure, they probably won't work in anything except VirtualPC, but they are still free copies of XP! I thought the whole rationale behind making VPC free was to drive adoption of virtualization, resulting in more Windows licenses sold...

Are they *fully functional* versions? I.E. can you install other software (there's a decent supply of XP-only software that won't even run in W2K)? The summary suggests you can upgrade the browser, which is a big step by itself... but I have a few friends who haven't upgraded to W2K for various reasons, and still run W2K. Does this new download mean they would be able to use XP (within W2K) without needing to buy an XP license?

--
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...

Re:*Free* XP images? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-01 05:45 · Score: 0

i'd like to find this out as well.

there are some sites that REQUIRE XP like http://video.aol.com/

still running xp on a 2k box will be slow... xp is such a hog.
Re:*Free* XP images? by allscan · 2006-12-01 06:42 · Score: 1

Too bad when I tried to update IE6 in the image to IE7, the installer told me it was not a "Genuine" copy of Windows, ha!
Re:*Free* XP images? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-02 16:09 · Score: 0

fully functional.

just run gpedit.mcs or msc?
and remove all the crap that was made to confine you.

have fun.

Multiple IE Installs on a single machine by rainer3 · 2006-12-01 05:02 · Score: 2, Informative

Without having to use a virtual machine, here's how to install multiple versions of IE on a single machine: Multiple IE.

Re:Multiple IE Installs on a single machine by Baba+Ram+Dass · 2006-12-01 06:56 · Score: 1

I also use MultipleIE all the time. Works great for testing (there's some issues in IE6 but fairly minor), and I don't think it requires a legal Windows license to work.

--
Truckin like the Doo-Dah man...

why a virtual machine? by bfields · 2006-12-01 05:03 · Score: 1

Help out a poor non-Windows user: why on earth do you need an entirely separate copy of the OS to run a different version of IE? Why can't you run the two side-by-side under one OS?

Re:why a virtual machine? by NineNine · 2006-12-01 05:23 · Score: 1

Basic interfaces and integration. There are so many apps that use IE embedded in them, that if they were different (different interfaces), you'd end up with a real mess.
Re:why a virtual machine? by bfields · 2006-12-01 05:57 · Score: 1

There are so many apps that use IE embedded in them, that if they were different (different interfaces), you'd end up with a real mess.

Surely this mess should be trivial to sort out--give one of the two installations a different name, make sure it doesn't overwrite any of the other's shared libraries, whatever. It doesn't seem that different from having multiple browsers (IE, firefox, opera...) installed side-by-side.
Re:why a virtual machine? by NineNine · 2006-12-01 06:03 · Score: 1

Well, not really. Since they designed it for interoprability, I can embed any IE functions I want to in my own applications and not have to worry about which version of IE the user will be using. The .dll has the same name, the same interface, etc, so if I'm developing an app, it's all seamless to me.

Not only that, but you'd have a mess at the desktop level because so much of the desktop is rendered using IE (everything is a web browser).
Re:why a virtual machine? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-01 07:49 · Score: 1, Informative

This is idiot.

All that apps that use IE could still use the version that comes with the OS,
and let me install another version under a separate path.

On Unix only the amateurish programs have hardwired paths, ports and shared library
versions; or insist to be installed or run as root - it's completely ridiculous that
you tout this idiocy as a feature of Windows and MSIE.
Re:why a virtual machine? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-01 09:20 · Score: 0

You can. If you've installed IE7, check in your Windows folder for a certain folder (may be hidden) called ie7. Inside it, is a functional version of IE6 (I assume it's because it's a backed up version in case you uninstall etc). Also, I'm sure there were other guides linked elsewhere in the topic showing how to run versions of IE 3/4/5/6 concurrently.
Re:why a virtual machine? by ben+there... · 2006-12-01 10:37 · Score: 1

Well, not really. Since they designed it for interoprability, I can embed any IE functions I want to in my own applications and not have to worry about which version of IE the user will be using. The .dll has the same name, the same interface, etc, so if I'm developing an app, it's all seamless to me.

I believe it would be easier actually to have separate libraries. As it is, you have a moving target. You may need to update your app-with-embedded-IE for compatibility with the new IE7 library, whether you wanted to or not.
Re:why a virtual machine? by NineNine · 2006-12-01 11:09 · Score: 1

Not necessarily. If all you're doing is rendering HTML or reading XML or something basic like that, it doesn't change. I dunno. I'm not any kind of systems architect. I just know that it's mind-boggling easy to embed IE in any Windows app (drag and drop), and that makes developing apps incredibly easy. Right now, I have open two shrink-wrapped applications (business apps that I purchased) that also use IE heavily.

Why go through all the trouble? by Ucklak · 2006-12-01 05:05 · Score: 1

Seriously.

Code for standards, tweak for IE6 should be sufficient. Once IE7 hits over the 70% mark, then it's moot anyway.

Corporate needs are different but they'll code for a specific browser anyway.

If the site breaks for IE6 - which shouldn't, just display funky, then the user can download Opera or Firefox for free.
Likewise when there is yet another vulnerability for IE6, the user shouldn't be using IE anyway.

--
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.

Microsoft is "supporting" web developers? by codemaster2b · 2006-12-01 05:05 · Score: 1

Listen, if Microsoft wanted to support web developers they would let IE6 and IE7 be installed in parallel on the same OS. Forget the virtual PC business. I'm not even sure Microsoft can because they have so integrated IE into the operating system!

--
And over there we have the labyrinth guards. One always lies, one always tells the truth, and one stabs people who ask t

vmware vpc importer by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-01 05:12 · Score: 0

i'm going to have to see if this works:
http://geekswithblogs.net/ehammersley/archive/2005 /08/04/49143.aspx

Re:Why bother? MS should use Opera or Firefox inst by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-01 05:20 · Score: 0

We have a corporate intranet, but it runs on Apache rather than IIS.
Could that be the crucial difference?

Shouldn't need a VM by franksands · 2006-12-01 05:25 · Score: 1

The fundamental question is: why can't I install two different versions of IE in the same windows installation?

Re:Shouldn't need a VM by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-01 07:02 · Score: 0

The fundamental question is: why can't I install two different versions of IE in the same windows installation?

Of course you can, but if microsoft said you could it would destroy the fiction that IE is an integral, inseparable part of the operating system, which they claimed at their antitrust trial.
Re:Shouldn't need a VM by franksands · 2006-12-02 02:01 · Score: 1

Yes, but being an integral part of the OS is a clear disadvantadge. This only means that is a short-cut to the OS system calls, that's the main reason windows is much easier to atack. IE should be only an application, as far from the kernel as possible. All browser are, or should be, html renderers with with some components to play media, and that's all. There's no reason a browser should have kernel access. It's just dumb.

Re:Why bother? MS should use Opera or Firefox inst by mrchaotica · 2006-12-01 05:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

What's your point? Corporations could write intranet browser-based apps just as easily for Firefox -- and even get a better result, since they could make superior GUIs with XUL!

And before you start talking about preexisting apps, note that IE6 would still be around for legacy compatibility. Furthermore, MS doesn't seem to have a problem with changing toolkits (see: Win32 -> MFC -> WinForms), so why would it have a problem with changing the browser too?

--

"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

the original version of this was a corp version by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-01 05:28 · Score: 0

and the key was a valid key, it passed the WGA check.

IEs4Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-01 05:29 · Score: 0

Mwa-ha-ha-ha. IEs4Linux is my answer! =)

Re:Write code for standards not for Virtual Machin by hr.wien · 2006-12-01 05:30 · Score: 1

Running an entire separat machine to test on is less hassle than having a few VMs running? What world are you living in? Personally I develop on a Linux box with Windows 2000/XP/Vista (IE5.5/6/7) running in VMWare. This allows me to code in Linux, and test in just about any browser in existance, on several different platforms. All on the same box. (With the exception of Mac-based browsers of course, since I haven't been able to get Tiger to run in VMWare.)

Now just admit that it's NOT part of the OS... by bADlOGIN · 2006-12-01 05:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

(since it isn't) and make it so you don't have to do stupid crap like this.

Lessie... memory management, process scheduling, storage, parsing & rendering HTML.

Which of these doesn't fit again?

--
*** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.

Re:Write code for standards not for Virtual Machin by hr.wien · 2006-12-01 05:36 · Score: 0, Redundant

Running an entire separat machine to test on is less hassle than having a few VMs running? What world are you living in?

Personally I develop on a Linux box with Windows 2000/XP/Vista (IE5.5/6/7 + different versions of other browsers on Windows) running in VMWare. This allows me to code in my environment of choice (Linux), and test in just about any browser in existance, on several different platforms. All on the same box. (With the exception of Mac-based browsers of course, since I haven't been able to get Tiger to run in VMWare.)

Careful... by 8ball629 · 2006-12-01 05:37 · Score: 1

I've had some issues with position relative, though most have been resolved since beta, I've still had a few problems. Other than that - it renders everything similar to Firefox 2.0.

This VM works in VMWare by Darkforge · 2006-12-01 05:44 · Score: 1

If this is a move against VMWare, the joke's on Microsoft. You can convert VirtualPC images to VMWare images using the VMWare Virtual Machine Importer, which is a free download.

--

When I moderate, I only use "-1, Overrated". That way, I never get meta-moderated!

In the words of Shenia Twain... by dcam · 2006-12-01 05:56 · Score: 1

...that doesn't impress me much.

As a web developer, this doesn't really do anything for me because:
1. Virtual PC was already free
2. An XP license is a negligable cost (if you don't already have an MSDN subscription)
3. This does nothing for IE 5 & 5.5

Maybe IE 5 & 5.5 are so long ago inside the Microsoft campus that they can be forgotten, however in the real world people still use them.

In addition Virtual PC is a headache because:
1. You need to boot the machine up which takes a while
2. You can't hit a local IP address
3. It is noticably slower than running natively (Core duo2 6400, 2Gb RAM)

When you compare this with how say firefox works, the Microsoft solution just doesn't compare well. With firefox I can install multiple versions and run them side by side.

In addition, this still doesn't answer why Microsoft chose to sic the lawyers onto the much more useful solution, which is closer to the Firefox style.

Full credit to Microsoft for the attempt, but it is a pretty half assed one at that.

--
meh

link to the vpc image by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-01 05:59 · Score: 0

http://download.microsoft.com/download/b/7/2/b7208 5ae-0f04-4c6f-9182-bf1ee90f5273/IE6AC_VPC.EXE

hah, WGA

Re:Write code for standards not for Virtual Machin by Marcion · 2006-12-01 06:05 · Score: 1

>Running an entire separat machine to test on is less hassle than having a few VMs running? What world are you living in?

One with an abundant supply of supply of crap Windows boxes. Just learn over and there is one.

>Personally I develop on a Linux box

Me too, would not pollute my beautiful new dual core machine with proprietary software (Well I need to have Java but that has become GPL).

--
My little Linux and tech blog

Re:Why bother? MS should use Opera or Firefox inst by Fuger · 2006-12-01 06:06 · Score: 1

Not only that, but how would it benefit Microsoft to enlighten the general populace that there are alternatives to Microsoft software? One of the reasons why IE has such a large marketshare is that it comes with Windows. Windows is the dominant OS, and most users simply use the tools provided.

Forcing users to go out and actively download another browser, when they've been using IE for so long, may open their eyes to alternatives. Users may say, "Hey! I have choices for browsers, and they all display the same Internet! I wonder if there are any alternatives to MS Office that can still open my documents?"

It's not my intention to feed the "Microsoft is a bunch of evil monopolists who will stop at nothing for world domination!" trolls, but I simply don't see how it is in Microsoft's best interests to abandon IE. (Although I wish they would for the reasons I have just provided. :) )

--
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
What is Sig?

Olive branch or more anti-competitive bullshit? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-01 06:10 · Score: 0

I install Win2k in VMWare on linux, then install the XP image in Virtual PC under my virtualized 2k? Seems like a particularly convoluted way to test my web apps will work for Microsoft customers.

I'm not a MSDN subscriber and I've no intention of becoming one, however I'd like lite versions of XP and Vista that run under Xen or VMWare. I don't trust Microsoft, I run their software to test that my software is compatible and for no other reason. I think that MS can do more here, specifically because Windows is no longer welcome at the hardware level on any of my computers.

I can't believe this is slashdot... by spedrosa · 2006-12-01 06:11 · Score: 1

Guys,

You can install standalone versions of any IE you want, from 3 to 7. I don't get what the fuss is about. Installing a virtual machine just to run IE? pfff!

Try this and be happy:

http://tredosoft.com/IE7_standalone

Seriously, what sort of geeks are you?

PHP Test by jav1231 · 2006-12-01 06:19 · Score: 1

Here's a test even Microsoft can do:
Take IE and just browse some WordPress themes and see how many it butchers trying to render. Nuff said, back to the drawing board.

Re:Write code for standards not for Virtual Machin by everphilski · 2006-12-01 06:20 · Score: 1

would not pollute my beautiful new dual core machine with proprietary software

nVidia or ATI video codecs? Binary drivers tainting your kernerl? Oh, I'm sure there is plenty of proprietary software 'tainting' your dual core machiene.

Re:Why bother? MS should use Opera or Firefox inst by gamer4Life · 2006-12-01 06:51 · Score: 1

The reason is that Microsoft can direct users to (highly recommended) web resources that they own, such as MSN.

Easier ??? by biduxe · 2006-12-01 06:51 · Score: 1

WOW !!! this is just... Easy is the term which come to my mind

Can't upgrade this disk image to IE7 by davidbrit2 · 2006-12-01 07:00 · Score: 1

Yup, you can't even upgrade this from IE6 to IE7. The serial number for the installation doesn't pass the genuine advantage validation nonsense, which IE7 requires you to do to install it.

Into the recycle bin...

Good news? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-01 07:03 · Score: 0

All-around good news for web developers? What ever gave that impression? Web developers do use IE for testing, but there are already ways to use IE6 and IE7 simultaneously on the same machine, and it's not rocket science. I'm not going to download VirtualPC just so I can test in IE7, I'll tell you that much. What a hassle to do something that can be accomplished more easily using alternative methods.

Website by Z34107 · 2006-12-01 07:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Believe it or not, your site is hardly representative of the rest the internet's tubes.

Some people are paid to develop websites designed for a less limited group of users. Some, dare I say most websites, especially on corporate intranets, have some need to support Internet Explorer.

Microsoft made this easier, and they made it free. Seems like a Good Thing to me, even if you never plan on using it.

--
DATABASE WOW WOW

Re:Write code for standards not for Virtual Machin by Marcion · 2006-12-01 07:28 · Score: 1

nVidia or ATI video codecs?

Using the free driver, but I do have win32codecs in mplayer....

A few K is a bit different than installing several GB of Vmware and Windows XP and so on.

--
My little Linux and tech blog

Why bother with this? by Corporate+Gadfly · 2006-12-01 07:37 · Score: 1

In Nov. 2003, ie standalone appeared on the evolt.org website. I used that to run IE 5.0, 5.x side-by-side. Now, (I haven't tried this), if you already have IE7 installed you can use Multiple IE to have IE3 IE4.01 IE5 IE5.5 and IE6 installed standalone.

Hope this helps.

--
Corporate Gadfly
Jonathan Archer: the most beaten up Enterprise captain in Star Trek history

And if you want IE6 but not Windows... by pestilence669 · 2006-12-01 07:53 · Score: 1

IE6 runs reasonably well in Wine.

Free XP? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-01 08:02 · Score: 0

So MS is making it easier to get XP without a license? First off, you can get the image by running the alternate WGA check on a valid machine (like a school computer) and inputting that code on the machine you want the image for. Then VMWare I believe can import VPC images and then run that image under Linux. You could probably also pull off copying the imaged drive onto a regular hard drive.

The question though is, does the image come with a valid key or do you have to enter a custom one? In other words, how do they prevent someone using this to create a normal windows installation?

Re:Why bother? MS should use Opera or Firefox inst by jZnat · 2006-12-01 08:10 · Score: 1

They could do that with their own custom version of Firefox. It'd save them a lot of money by just patching Firefox a bit than having to maintain their own web browser.

--
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'

hash? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-12-01 12:43 · Score: 0

Anyone have the current &hash= part of the url after validation for downloading that virtual image? (My Win2k is fully legal, thank you very much, but there's no way I'm allowing anything WGA related to touch my box. I'd like to remain in control of my own machine.)

IE6 stand-alone from Browsers Evolt by Walter+Carver · 2006-12-01 13:05 · Score: 1

There you go: http://browsers.evolt.org/?ie/32bit/standalone

Install IE7 and use these stand-alone zipped versions to test your site. The trick was to grab all the files in \program files\internet explorer\ and include a iexplore.exe.external (I don't recall that filename very well, it's been some time till I used them).

Re:Why bother? MS should use Opera or Firefox inst by asuffield · 2006-12-01 20:37 · Score: 1

Maybe MS is somehow is benefiting from the endless cycles of MSIE-based spyware, viruses, and general security problems. If not, then it (and we) would be much better off if MS should drop MSIE completely. Where does MS come out ahead financially?

Microsoft's often-stated goal is not to make money. Their goal is to make everybody run Microsoft software for everything they do (they justify this by thinking "because nobody else can do it right"). Regardless of how bad IE might be, it's Microsoft software, so they want to make people run it rather than anything else.

Slashdot Mirror

Microsoft Makes Testing IE6 and 7 Easier

167 comments