Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 00:03 UTC
Microsoft Microsoft has just responded to Google's move regarding Exchange ActiveSync. Sadly, instead of addressing the very real problems consumers are about to face, Microsoft starts talking about switching to Outlook.com.
Thread beginning with comment 545651
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Tue 18th Dec 2012 14:49 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

That's how all software works. That's how version numbering works. It's not unique to IE, it's what everyone expects and not something specific to enterprise customers.


Except in the web browser world it doesn't work like that. Chrome for example worked fine with Sitecore CMS system backend until a month ago, now it doesn't work ... because Chrome has ramped the version. It still works in IE10.

Whether the backend should work in Chrome is another argument entirely.

Plus it's not even what enterprise customers request. They usually require support for a number of years and often across a range of versions. Which, to be fair, is something Microsoft are generally good at.


Yes so you code for a feature set in version X and that is supported until version Z. Which is exactly what I said.

Edited 2012-12-18 14:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Tue 18th Dec 2012 14:59 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by shmerl"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


Except in the web browser world it doesn't work like that. Chrome for example worked fine with Sitecore CMS system backend until a month ago, now it doesn't work ... because Chrome has ramped the version. It still works in IE10.

Exactly. Chrome incremented a version.

What you're actually complaining about is how often some browsers see updates. That's a different debate entirely.

Yes so you code for a feature set in version X and that is supported until version Z. Which is exactly what I said.

It's what you said, but not what you're arguing. All (read: ALL) software works this way. That's the whole f--king point of version numbers. What you're bitching about is the frequency that some browsers update. And that argument is an often debated topic.

Edited 2012-12-18 15:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[10]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Tue 18th Dec 2012 15:20 in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18


Exactly. Chrome incremented a version.

What you're actually complaining about is how often some browsers see updates. That's a different debate entirely.


No it isn't if you are producing an intranet application.

It's what you said, but not what you're arguing. All (read: ALL) software works this way. That's the whole f--king point of version numbers. What you're bitching about is the frequency that some browsers update. And that argument is an often debated topic.


I was saying that is the same reason why .NET isn't open sourced, is because companies test their app running against the .NET 2.0 runtime for example in the same way that some companies test against IE8 because that is what is deployed on workstations.

Micrsoft guarantee that Version X in .NET and IE will have a certain feature set and they won't change until it is outside of the support cycle.

It is like swimming through porridge on this site sometimes.

Reply Parent Score: 1