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 545659
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Tue 18th Dec 2012 15:24 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

TBH I don't really care one way or another. I do care about people complaining about Microsoft supporting something that nobody uses and doesn't benefit their customers.

We're talking about open standards, not MS supporting something that nobody uses

And? So you have the most popular document format in the world and they make their own competeting standard and it didn't work out well.

Why would Microsoft support such as move, I don't know.

If I made my own popular file format and someone told me I should support it and it isn't nearly as widely used, I wouldn't bother to support it either.

that doesn't even make sense.

Why would they do that? there is no motivation to do so.

You said MS support open standards. If that were true, then there would be motivation to do so. Ergo, you've just disproved your earlier statement.


YES .NET 1.0 and 1.1 weren't great. C# != .NET.

Languages are neither open nor closed nor even copyrighted (as proved with the Oracle vs Google case). It's their framework the decides the open nature of a language. Thus I'm discussing the crux of the matter when arguing about open standards.


How can something be invented to break standards? It doesn't make sense.

It like saying I am inventing PHP to break Python.

Now you're just arguing semantics. Clearly the context is talking about MS breaking from established standards rather than literally breaking the standards themselves.

Their Java IDE was still rubbish.

so you've basically used one IDE and feel you're qualified to make sweeping statements about an entire company? Well done.


There was nothing that was a dejure standard that everyone used.

Clearly there was, but such standards never made it into MS products. However there's a whole industry outside of Microsoft.

To be honest I went down this road because of ASP.NET being open sourced recently.

So, like with Borland, you're making a sweeping generalisation about a whole company based on one product.

Well this is what a lot of developers are currently doing on Mobile. Webkit is king and anything that isn't Webkit is a second class citizen. Like it or Lump it that the way it is.

Yeah. sad but true ;)


IE8 for CSS and XHTML was fine, If you whine about SVG and other things ... these simply aren't used by web developers.

Web developers weren't using advanced techniques because they'd lose a high percentage of Windows users (pretty much half the web). It wasn't a matter of choice, it was because MS forced their hand.

However IE was an improvement and IE9 is actually a fairly decent browser. So web developers are now adding advanced techniques they couldn't risk before.

Two arbitary specifications!! Only the most important 2.

You talk as if the other browsers didn't support everyday features. That wasn't true. Instead they used browser specific extensions because, up until then, W3C dragged their heals in formalising said specifications. (and to be honest, I blame the w3c as much as I blame MS for the fiasco we had in the 90s / early 00s).

Because I rate my browsing experience on whether something can pass the ACID test.

We're talking about support for open standards, not how well web developers got at writing IE-specific hacks to make your browsing experience tolerable.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Tue 18th Dec 2012 18:16 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

so you've basically used one IDE and feel you're qualified to make sweeping statements about an entire company? Well done.


That is what people say about Microsoft. I simply said I didn't like one of their IDEs nothing more.

Clearly there was, but such standards never made it into MS products. However there's a whole industry outside of Microsoft.


That far fewer people use.

So, like with Borland, you're making a sweeping generalisation about a whole company based on one product.


No I pointed out that it just simply isn't true for the whole company and Shmerl was making sweeping statements by saying so.

Web developers weren't using advanced techniques because they'd lose a high percentage of Windows users (pretty much half the web). It wasn't a matter of choice, it was because MS forced their hand.


Simply no, I haven't seen a need to use a lot of the "advanced features" other than CSS 3.0, and the browser should be allowed to fall back. If a web developer isn't using CSS 3.0 now and having appropriate fallbacks and polyfills ... they should be.

However IE was an improvement and IE9 is actually a fairly decent browser. So web developers are now adding advanced techniques they couldn't risk before.

You talk as if the other browsers didn't support everyday features. That wasn't true. Instead they used browser specific extensions because, up until then, W3C dragged their heals in formalising said specifications. (and to be honest, I blame the w3c as much as I blame MS for the fiasco we had in the 90s / early 00s).


Out of the two competing browsers in the 90s it was IE which innovated.

It is a testament to how good IE6 was ahead of everything else that is can still render pages decently today if the page is built correctly. Every single BBC webpage I have tried renders from IE6 to Latest Chrome perfectly.

IE4 had a massive number of downloads considering the bandwidth commonly available at the time (which nobody ever mentions).

We're talking about support for open standards, not how well web developers got at writing IE-specific hacks to make your browsing experience tolerable.


IE7 and IE8 require almost no hacks to render a page the same as any of the modern browsers. Those that exist are well documented and easily avoided.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Tue 18th Dec 2012 19:07 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by shmerl"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I simply said I didn't like one of their IDEs nothing more.

Except you didn't simply state "one of their IDEs", you make a generalisation about their entire product range.

That far fewer people use.

More people used ODF than OOXML, before the release of Office 2007. So your point is moot. MS had to switch to an open standard so they invented one that nobody used instead of switching to an established standard and the 2nd most popular format after the one they were forced into switching from.

Simply no, I haven't seen a need to use a lot of the "advanced features" other than CSS 3.0, and the browser should be allowed to fall back. If a web developer isn't using CSS 3.0 now and having appropriate fallbacks and polyfills ... they should be.

Except that IE8 didn't support CSS 3. So your whole defence about developers not having to work around IE8 is moot.

Out of the two competing browsers in the 90s it was IE which innovated.

Indeed, but you're talking two decades ago, and the moment MS killed Navigator, they gave up trying.

Plus MS only innovated because they were trying to drive Netscape out by making the web incompatible (though grated Netscape were doing the same - I have no sympathy for them either). That's not how open standards work.

It is a testament to how good IE6 was ahead of everything else that is can still render pages decently today if the page is built correctly. Every single BBC webpage I have tried renders from IE6 to Latest Chrome perfectly.

IE6 was garbage and once again, your attributing credit to a crappy browser when the real praise belongs to the web developers for writing IE6 hacks.

You talk almost as if you've never had to build a website in your life.

IE4 had a massive number of downloads considering the bandwidth commonly available at the time (which nobody ever mentions).

Nobody mentions because it's an irrelevant point. Ubuntu has had massive number of downloads and you likely consider that garbage.

IE7 and IE8 require almost no hacks to render a page the same as any of the modern browsers. Those that exist are well documented and easily avoided.

Maybe not if you're using popular web frameworks, but those frameworks will have IE7 hacks built into them.

Reply Parent Score: 3