Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> http://photomatt.net/2006/08/03/ie7-on-new-sonys/
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | I was in the Sony store the other day because Vista has been driving me
> | nuts, I can't find my restore disks, and in a moment of weakness I was
> | contemplating a new laptop. Anyway they had some pretty nice models, but
> | what struck me most when playing around with the different computers
> | wast hat IE7 was installed as the default browser on each of these
> | computers. Consider IE7 wrecks havoc on sites like WordPress.org, Ib
> | etter start testing with it.
> `----
>
> This reminded me of something from Thurrot, which was published last night
> (thanks, (H)omer):
>
> http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_ready.asp
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | "Or take IE 7. Please. I use IE for one thing and one thing only: The
> | magazine's Web portal requires IE to post articles, and because I post
> | WinInfo articles every day, I need to use IE. Every day. In IE 7, the
> | rich edit control that forms the basis of the third party ActiveX
> | control we used to post article bodies not only doesn't work, it is
> | actually deprecated in Vista so that it will never work, even if you
> | manually install it. That means I will have to use an older version of
> | IE, in a virtual machine, to post WinInfo articles for the foreseeable
> | future. Stupid."
> `----
>
> Relates to:
>
> http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/47208/47208.html?Ad=1
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | My advice is simple: Boycott IE. It?s a cancer on the Web that must be
> | stopped. IE isn?t secure and isn?t standards-compliant, which makes
> | it unworkable both for end users and Web content creators. Because of
> | their user bases, however, Web developers are hamstrung into developing
> | for IE at the expense of established standards that work well in all
> | other browsers. You can turn the tide by demanding more from Microsoft
> | and by using a better alternative Web browser. I recommend and useM
> | ozilla Firefox, but Apple Safari (Macintosh only) and Opera 8 are both
> | worth considering as well.
> `----
>
> Some of the remainder from the new article (yesterday):
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | We might call Windows Vista a "train wreck" for simplicity's sake. But
> | it's getting better. Seriously.
> |
> | Is Windows Vista ready?
> |
> | No. God, no.
> |
> | [...]
> |
> | Will Vista be ready in time?
> |
> | Honestly, who cares? After five years of delays, another six months
> | isn't going to make a difference.
> `----
The problem here isn't really vista. vista isn't released yat, it is in
beta. So you should have loaded it knowing they was a possibility that you
would have to restore your old system, or protect it before installing
vista.
You should have tested it, which is what it is in beta for, then report back
through what ever channels MS have set up for that.
MS can be blamed for a lot, but they can't be blamed if the testers are not
doing the job of testing.
We used to get cooker users complaining in the same way, instead of thinking
'This is a cooker, I must protect my system before I install this' they
would just go ahead blindly then grumble in news groups because something
doesn't work.
Testing is a serious business, if you don't know what you are doing, whether
Windows, Linux, Mac or Spectrum, then leave the betas/cookers alone because
you do more harm than good.
|
|
