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 545685
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Tue 18th Dec 2012 18:16 UTC 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

RE[9]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Tue 18th Dec 2012 21:46 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18


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


No it is because you don't understand web development. There is a lot of articles that can talk about it better than I. The basic message is progressive enhancement, the idea is the web page scales to the user-agent.

Even if we go past that, if you are doing it properly you are doing feature detection and then using a polyfill. Whether IE has the feature or not becomes irrelevant because we have provided a work around.

People that are complaining the opposite as far as I am concerned need to grown a pair.

e.g. No rounded corners, we will present a decent UI with Square ones ... no CSS gradient we will use a CSS3PIE or whatever is appropriate.


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.


The same argument has been used by others as to why IE had to innovate recently. Competition drives innovation ... up until IE6 there was decent competition in THAT ERA and recently it has happened again.

Not being funny, but this comes back to De-facto vs De-jure standards. -Webkit extensions have become de-facto on mobile.

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.


Actually I have built quite a few websites and I have no problems with cross browser problems until it is something the browser can't do WITHOUT hacks. That is when I use IE specific stylesheets and I use them sparingly.

IE6 was never garbage when it came out. In fact it was built against a draft standard that was changed shortly after it's release.



I actually try understanding what the browser is doing before writing hacks and see if what I am doing is even a sensible markup before continuing.

A lot of IE6 problems are "hasLayout" based or double margin bug. If people actually bothered reading the documentation (RTFM), maybe we wouldn't have these discussions.

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


Maybe now, but it proves that AT THE TIME people wanted IE better than Netscape when we were working on Dial-up.

No other browser had that number of downloads at the time (or any other piece of software).

Oh well.


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


Bollox, I know how to program for a browser thanks and I don't need hacks.

I am sorry, but I am a competent web-dev. My English ain't the best but I know how to do develop a web page properly.

Edited 2012-12-18 21:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2