Unable to reply to posts using Internet Explorer

I had trouble at work using IE8 , always wanted to run scripts and would not let me post . Downloaded Chrome , a superb browser , all OK now

Windows 2 was a luxury in my early PC days , we used an IBM XT running MSDOS , in the late eighties , everything was black and green with a total memory of 1mb .
My first PC had a 170mb hard drive , which I thought then would take several lifetimes to fill !

 

Hi Moyra your version is shown on the "HELP" on the menu bar , then select "About Internet Explorer " , this works in virtually any windows software for the version number.

 

So it does , that confirms I am now using IE 8

 

using ie7 and windows xp pro sp3 cant post reply.

using chrome windows 7 sp1 can post reply.

must be the browser that is the problem with the new code on the site not the operating system as that hasn't changed.

 

My money is on this being an HTML5 / CSS3 thing. IE is behind on support for such things (except IE10).

Any devout IE users can use Chrome Frame to get round this limitation.
http://www.google.com/chromeframe?quickenable=true

 

I've just gone back to IE to see if its working for me, I now use Firefox usually, I have IE version 8, it appears to be working ok on the site, but it is so slow, got fed up waiting for the pages to load.

 

To make Chrome do a real refresh (sometimes it cheats and keeps some stuff cached), hit CTRL+Shift+R

 

I'm on Windows 7 with IE9 and no problems.

 

W7 and IE 9 I can post but still not solved Firefox problem

 

Do you think they will ever get the internet sorted out so that it actually works for everyone?
Strikes me its unreliable and the slightest thing can make it unworkable, for instance I cant log on in Natwest using Firefox, if I do my whole PC freezes and I have to do a restart.
So I have to use Chrome or IE for that.

Surely they can come up with a system that works for everyone and all the time, if not it makes a complete mockery out of doing anything serious on the internet.
I look upon it as a toy, for amusement only, (wish I did), as its too unreliable.

 

No.

There are organisations, including (but not limited to) the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) that are made up of industry experts who are trying to take the best of innovation and then standardise it. There are defined standards set by such organisations, and if every software developer followed those standards, then everything would work. The trouble is the internet is self defeating. The very thing that makes it great is also what holds it back. Its accessibility to all. It means that a talented kid, talented but with no experience, can come up with some ingenious piece of code that breaks all the standards, then publish it, blog about it, and influence others to follow. A bit like the old saying about the blind leading the blind. It doesn't help matters that even the big boys, like Microsoft, fail to correctly implement the defined standards, so often even developers that want to comply, have to do dirty hacks just to make stuff work correctly in as many configurations as possible.

 

I'm using IE8 /Windows 7. No problems,
Jenny

 

Its mostly not the Internet. The Internet makes the standards, which have evolved over time to allow different & better ways of doing things. So us programmers have to build websites that take advantage of new cool features, but still "degrade" gracefully on older browsers which work to earlier standards. Assuming we don't cock that complexity up:

There are several browsers - the main ones are IE, Chrome and Firefox, but IE on a Mac is not the same as IE on a PC ... and then there are gazillions of versions. Some versions have known bugs that we have to specifically work around. So now we have to not only build the backward compatibility, but also to test on all these different versions ... ideally all users would just upgrade to latest version (in fact with Chrome I'm not sure it is even possible to stick on an earlier version, mine just upgrades next time I restart Chrome [if there is a later version], it doesn't even ask me if its OK)

But then someone finds that their Bank's website, say, doesn't work with the new version of IE, so they stick with the old version ... so now that version has to be supported.

Why are folk still on IE7 when IE-10 is out now? I don't know the answer - assuming they don't have a specific, known, issue with their Bank being incompatible with the latest IE

By the by, unless anyone has a known reason to stick with an old version my advice is "don't". All sorts of security glitches come to light with older versions, putting you at risk.

Of course upgrading may mean that some site doesn't work, although in all the time I've been using Chrome, with updates ever few weeks, I haven't noticed a problem with a site failing to work that I can remember - no doubt tomorrow will be the first time that happens !!!

Personally I think life was much easier in the way-back-when when Microsoft was the only browser in town, it wasn't updated frequently (until Netscape came along and challenged for the Microsoft crown) and that lack of upheaval meant that things were built for IE specifically and tended to work.

Most websites I see being built are "thrown together" rather than engineered. Such projects are run by Marketing departments rather than Computer departments and managing such projects is like herding cats. Everything is about pixel-perfect design, like an Ad in a glossy mag, and little about usability ... Form over Function. I despair of companies making their site different to the mainstream "because they can" and because it is Creative. If all eCommerce sites worked just like, say, Amazon then the Punter would find using them much easier. By trying to be clever and attract customers they run the risk of alienating them instead. How many eCommerce sites do you shop at that forget your whole basket if you are on the phone for a while, or go to make a cuppa and are distracted for 20 minutes?

But such has always existed, and I've been there before. In the early days of Windows Microsoft and IBM [jointly] had standards for things. Everything was grey and boring. Control-S was for Save, and the FILE menu had specific things, in a specific order, that should appear there. There was a definition for when to use OK / CLOSE buttons and when there should be OK / CANCEL ones instead. Lots of thought had gone into that.

And then came along a little company called Borland. They did cool stuff, and made waves. Their OK buttons had a nice picture of a green tick, and the Cancel button a Red Cross ... you instant knew when you were using an application that had been built by some guys using Borland tools ... but I think that that differentiation makes it harder for the user. Sure its boring being grey ... buy complex computer software is beyond the wit of [most] men to build. I admire people who build software that flies aeroplanes, or space rockets, but they are working to much better software engineering standards than the people who build web browsers and websites for whom "first to market" is much more important than "robust".

You've been listening to Old Codger, now signing off for Hot Coco and some Warm Slippers ...