Microsoft yesterday warned users of Windows XP Service Pack 3 (SP3) that they won't be able to uninstall either the service pack or Internet Explorer 8 (IE8) under some circumstances. The warning was reminiscent of one Microsoft made in May, when Windows XP SP3 had just been made available for downloading. At the time, the company told users they wouldn't be able to downgrade from IE7 to the older IE6 browser without uninstalling the service pack.In a post to the IE blog today, Jane Maliouta, a Microsoft program manager, spelled out the newest situation, which affects users who downloaded and installed IE8 Beta 1 prior to updating Windows XP to SP3. If those users then upgrade IE8 to Beta 2 , which Microsoft unveiled today, they will be stuck with both IE8 and Windows XP SP3. A warning dialog will appear to alert users. "If you chose to continue, Windows XP SP3 and IE8 Beta2 will become permanent," Maliouta said. "You will still be able to upgrade to later IE8 builds as they become available, but you won't be able to uninstall them."
View: The full story @ InfoWorld
How many glasses of Microsoft kool-aid have you drunk today?
Then quit being a ****tard like so many other web developers and stop catering to ****ty browsers that don't support the standards.
Coddling the ****ty browsers and the idiots who can't and don't know how ****ty their browsers are only worsens the problem.
Then quit being a ****tard like so many other web developers and stop catering to ****ty browsers that don't support the standards.
Coddling the ****ty browsers and the idiots who can't and don't know how ****ty their browsers are only worsens the problem.
guys he means that:
IE is not performing to web standards (W3.org), therefore you have to design for Firefox/opera/safari and then IE separately
at least IE8 is now using the standards, so you only have to code once!!
because IE6/7 are the most widely used (i.e. the average Joe), basically MS broke the web (not using the standards)
Then quit being a ****tard like so many other web developers and stop catering to ****ty browsers that don't support the standards.
Coddling the ****ty browsers and the idiots who can't and don't know how ****ty their browsers are only worsens the problem.
You obviously have no sense of how the real world works.
In the real world, no one cares that you don't want to support IE due to its lack of standards support. The only thing that people care about is that their site works. If you don't support it, you will be replaced, and you will never get any work.
The reality is that the vast majority of the world uses IE.
Then quit being a ****tard like so many other web developers and stop catering to ****ty browsers that don't support the standards.
Coddling the ****ty browsers and the idiots who can't and don't know how ****ty their browsers are only worsens the problem.
Assuming you're referring to your own personal sites, yeah, that's a great thing to do! As far as making money, however, you can't afford to ignore IE and its horrible problems, unless you happen to get a client that is "in-the-know" about it. You can attempt to pitch the idea that IE alone takes up considerably more than 50% of your development time (seriously, there are humorous images on the Web that actually depict it), but it usually doesn't get far. Clients just want their sites to work. It is as simple as that.
Edit: And if anybody decides to make a Mac (Safari) joke about their site "just working", feel free. Safari could use a bit more exposure now that it is on Windows as well as Mac.
Then quit being a ****tard like so many other web developers and stop catering to ****ty browsers that don't support the standards.
Coddling the ****ty browsers and the idiots who can't and don't know how ****ty their browsers are only worsens the problem.
Assuming you're referring to your own personal sites, yeah, that's a great thing to do! As far as making money, however, you can't afford to ignore IE and its horrible problems, unless you happen to get a client that is "in-the-know" about it. You can attempt to pitch the idea that IE alone takes up considerably more than 50% of your development time (seriously, there are humorous images on the Web that actually depict it), but it usually doesn't get far. Clients just want their sites to work. It is as simple as that.
Edit: And if anybody decides to make a Mac (Safari) joke about their site "just working", feel free. Safari could use a bit more exposure now that it is on Windows as well as Mac.
And for this reason i like firefox, if a page refuse to play in a "x"-browser then i can suggest to the client a turnaround to install Firefox, Firefox is free, nice and mostly compatible in several operating system.
Then quit being a ****tard like so many other web developers and stop catering to ****ty browsers that don't support the standards.
Coddling the ****ty browsers and the idiots who can't and don't know how ****ty their browsers are only worsens the problem.
You obviously have no sense of how the real world works.
In the real world, no one cares that you don't want to support IE due to its lack of standards support. The only thing that people care about is that their site works. If you don't support it, you will be replaced, and you will never get any work.
The reality is that the vast majority of the world uses IE.
The vast majority of web users are also clueless about why and how IE SUCKS! Being complacent and going along with MSIE because you think the rest of the world is doing the same isn't helping.
How many glasses of Microsoft kool-aid have you drunk today?
Umm...73% of the browsers are internet explorer (which firefox kool Aid have *YOU* been drinking?). Who would design a web page and ignore 73% of the market? I am glad YOU are not a web designer in my company.
It's not the goal of a business to promote one browser over another, nor is it any business's responsibility to demand users upgrade or change their webbrowsers. The days of "This site requires Netscape to view, click here to download" were a retarded, childish joke. No business's management would allow their coders to cut out more than half of their potential site traffic for the sake of something as 1990s as a browser war. In fact, if a coder made the argument that it would be too much work, management would think they're being lazy.
Businesses have made a lot of stupid decisions for their websites over the years: splash pages, flash-based UIs, pop-ups, &c. But they're not about to make a move that would completely cut off a percentage of web users that Firefox would feel sheepish to even dream about. Users wants sites to 'just work', and only a complete moron thinks a business with half a brain would put that burden on the user rather than their site coders.
How many glasses of Microsoft kool-aid have you drunk today?
How many glasses of Mozilla kool-aid have you drunk today?
Or at least if you want to test it, then you can install a virtual machine to do the test.
It's the only way to fly.....
They need to make IE8 slipstreamable once it goes final.
Don't think I'll remove IE8 from my computer.
As for XP SP3, unless they have SP4 later, then I'll be in trouble lol
Doesn't anyone want to actually understand EXACTLY WHAT the potential problem is? I think it is clear.
"users who downloaded and installed IE8 Beta 1 prior to updating Windows XP to SP3. If those users then upgrade IE8 to Beta 2 , which Microsoft unveiled today, they will be stuck with both IE8 and Windows XP SP3. A warning dialog will appear to alert users. "If you chose to continue, Windows XP SP3 and IE8 Beta2 will become permanent."
I think it is spelled out perfectly that this is only an issue for a VERY specific group of users who have done precisely what is described. How many real people are likely to have done THOSE things in THAT order?
Not to mention the freaking warning dialog.
Somebody get a large box of clues and pass them around please!
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.