«

> scribbled:

>> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:21:28 +0000, simondo wrote:

>> Of course MS have the right to code their website to their specific
>> browser specifications and exclude other browsers.

> Agreed - Micro$oft DOES have the right to code it's website any way it
> chooses.

Then why is this thread all about how they should NOT be doing that?

> But, if it's wanting to attract new business from those who presently
> do not use Micro$oft products, then how can those people use
> Micro$oft's website to learn about its products when its website has
> been designed to exclude people using non-Micro$oft products?

That's easy; Download/install IE. It's free. Then you CAN view that website
and down load the 'goodies.'

It couldn't be much simpler than that.

--

Replace the obvious with paradise.net to email me
Found Images
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 18:17:23 +1300, in message
<pan.2004.10.23.05.17.23.852674@TRACKER>, wrote:

> What I do strongly suggest is that a website coded to the W3C (d)html
> specification will be viewable by all standards compliant browsers.


The page displays perfectly correctly when you spoof the user-agent header.

It's not as if the page is so not coded to W3C HTML specs that it won't display.

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 21:55:49 +1300, "Max Burke" <> wrote:

>> scribbled:
>
>>> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:21:28 +0000, simondo wrote:
>
>>> Of course MS have the right to code their website to their specific
>>> browser specifications and exclude other browsers.
>
>> Agreed - Micro$oft DOES have the right to code it's website any way it
>> chooses.
>
>Then why is this thread all about how they should NOT be doing that?
>
>> But, if it's wanting to attract new business from those who presently
>> do not use Micro$oft products, then how can those people use
>> Micro$oft's website to learn about its products when its website has
>> been designed to exclude people using non-Micro$oft products?
>
>That's easy; Download/install IE. It's free. Then you CAN view that website
>and down load the 'goodies.'



Not much point as it required .NET installed, they do not even tell you that..


>It couldn't be much simpler than that.



But the requirement of the DOJ was that they could not force you to use IE,
seems to me they just cocked these nose at the DOJ requirement, you can't even
use the Knowledge base with a different browser of your choice, a DOJ
requirement.

Max Burke wrote:

>> Mutlley scribbled:
>
>>> Microsoft Partner Pack for Windows XP
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/par...px?prereq=true
>
>> What a crock.
>
> Not really....
>
>> I access this link with Opera and get.
>> "To download the Windows Partner Pack applications, you must have
>> Microsoft Internet Explorer version 5.01 or greater. Click here to
>> download the latest version of Internet Explorer."
>
> So use IE....
>
>> Microshit is still up to it's old tricks..
>
> Hardly....
>
> If you choose not to comply with Microsofts requirements (to view their
> websites), there is no need for them to comply with your demands...
>
> Couldn't be much simpler than that, could it.
>
> Just my .02c worth on more irrelevant whining and bitching about
> Microsoft. Dont you ever get tired of behaving like that in this
> newsgroup?
>

Of course MS have the right to code their website to their specific browser
specifications and exclude other browsers. I would, however, be weary of
trading with a company which specifically seeks to limit its customers'
choices rather than being customer-focused and seeking to be as
accommodating to customer wishes and needs. I'd also be cautious about said
company because, having legitimately purchased an OS from them, they are
effectively dictating what non-OS software I can/have to use on that
legitimately purchased OS to obtain support and information directly from
that company for no obviously good technical reason. Neither point provides
reassurance that said company is interested in my unfettered use of the OS
alone or catering to MY REQUIREMENTS as a paying customer.

Cheers,
Simondo

Max Burke wrote:

>> simondo scribbled:
>
>>> Mcontinuallyrote:
>
>>>> Microshit is still up to it's old tricks..
>
>>> Hardly....
>>> If you choose not to comply with Microsofts requirements (to view
>>> their websites), there is no need for them to comply with your
>>> demands...
>>> Couldn't be much simpler than that, could it.
>>> Just my .02c worth on more irrelevant whining and bitching about
>>> Microsoft. Dont you ever get tired of behaving like that in this
>>> newsgroup?
>
>> Of course MS have the right to code their website to their specific
>> browser specifications and exclude other browsers.
>
> As do all the other webmasters that do the exact same thing.
>
> Want to, or need to view such web pages? They YOU need to comply with the
> requirements of the webmaster to do so....
> They've created their website to be seen in a certain way with a certain
> web browser, so you need to meet the requirements they set so YOU can view
> the website in the way THEY want you to see it.
>
>> I would, however,
>> be weary of trading with a company which specifically seeks to limit
>> its customers' choices rather than being customer-focused and seeking
>> to be as accommodating to customer wishes and needs.
>
> How is it limiting YOUR choices? They're NOT stopping you using any other
> web browser!
> They're just saying if you want to view *THEIR WEBSITE* then you need to
> do so with one particular web browser...

And I'm saying that a company which sells an OS and then limits the software
I can run on that OS to access support/goodies/whatever for that OS ON
THEIR WEBSITE doesn't have customer support or 'enhancing their users'
experiences' as a primary focus. I thought companies which took customer
satisfaction seriously were a good thing. Silly me.

> Snip the rest of whining and bitching that Microsoft isn't as you demand
> it has to be...

Sorry, I missed the whining part. Much like you continuely miss points and
make vapid arguments.

> Surely you can find something more 'constructive and usefull' to do with
> your time?

<snort> Check out the number of posts you've made recently against mine!!!
Besides, this is a light diversion from writing up my PhD. It doesn't take
a great deal of intellectual effort responding to your posts, and its
usually entertaining to see which way you'll miss the point or weasel next.

Cheers,
simondo

Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

> Allistar wrote:
>> How can it be "that simple" when the browser you need doesn't evern run
>> on the operating system you use? Do you suggest forking out hundreds of
>> dollars for that OS, buy a hard drive to install it on, get a dual boot
>> system just to view that one web page? How is that "simple"?
>
> why would you be trying to get to that page if it has nothing to do with
> your OS? oh, wait, I'll answer that... "Someone feels like picking on
> the big established company."

I was speaking more generally. I.e. about pages that require IE that are not
necessarily by Microsoft.

How would I, a person who uses an OS that doesn't run IE, view those pages?

Allistar.

Max Burke wrote:

>> Allistar scribbled:
>
>>> Max Burke wrote:
>
>>>> If a website designer is *so* moronically stupid that s/he creates a
>>>> website that is only viewable using ONE specific browser, than that
>>>> website designer is seriously banged in the head - has seriously
>>>> addled brains - is not interested in encouraging people to browser
>>>> his/her website(s).
>
>>> Many do exactly that.
>>> Not just Microsoft.
>>> That's their choice and right (it is their website aftr all). Just
>>> like it's the choice and right of 'vistors' to use a browser that
>>> wont work on those websites.
>>> If YOU really want or need to view those websites then YOU need to
>>> use the browser they say you need to use.
>
>>> It really IS that simple, and a much better use of your time than
>>> whining and bitiching in nz.comp that others aren't doing what YOU
>>> demand they have to do.
>
>> How can it be "that simple" when the browser you need doesn't evern
>> run on the operating system you use? Do you suggest forking out
>> hundreds of dollars for that OS, buy a hard drive to install it on,
>> get a dual boot system just to view that one web page? How is that
>> "simple"?
>
>
> Are you saying that is what YOU tried to do??????
>
> It's ALL about choices Allistar
> Choices YOU make.
>
> You cant blame anyone else for the choices YOU make, or their
> consequences.

I have no problem with that, but don't tell me the solution to viewing IE
only pages is simple - use IE. That soltuion is not simple for someone in
my situation who chooses to use an OS that doesn't run IE.

My choice would be not to view the IE only site (not that I have much choice
in thematter anyway). My choice would be to not do business with a company
that can't adhere to open standards.

Allistar.

> Allistar scribbled:

>> Max Burke wrote:

> How can it be "that simple" when the browser you need doesn't evern
> run on the operating system you use? Do you suggest forking out
> hundreds of dollars for that OS, buy a hard drive to install it on,
> get a dual boot system just to view that one web page? How is that
> "simple"?

>> Are you saying that is what YOU tried to do??????
>> It's ALL about choices Allistar
>> Choices YOU make.
>> You cant blame anyone else for the choices YOU make, or their
>> consequences.

> I have no problem with that, but don't tell me the solution to
> viewing IE only pages is simple - use IE. That soltuion is not simple
> for someone in my situation who chooses to use an OS that doesn't run
> IE.

That's the result of YOU choosing to do that Allistar. It's a concequence
of YOUR choice.
That's not Microsofts (or anyone elses) fault, problem, or concern.....

> My choice would be not to view the IE only site (not that I have much
> choice in thematter anyway). My choice would be to not do business
> with a company that can't adhere to open standards.

Again that for YOU to choose, as you apparently have done.
But then you somehow think that Microsoft is somehow at fault because YOU
made that choice.

--

Replace the obvious with paradise.net to email me
Found Images
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke

> simondo scribbled:

>> Max Burke wrote:
>> Let me get this straight....
>> Are you REALLY saying that by using any Microsoft OS you're limited
>> *BY MICROSOFT* to only using software they say you can use?

> Go back. Read my post. Now READ MY POST. Repeat. And do it again.
> Still think that's what I said?

Yes....

> I can't really put it clearer than this:

> Company C sells OS Z.
> To obtain web support/goodies from C for Z, C's product Y must be
> used. Web support/goodies for Z can't be obtained without spoofing by
> using other products W, X, and A which run on Z because C has
> designed the site to preclude this.
> C has therefore limited my options of what software I use to obtain
> support/goodies related to OS Z by requiring that I use their product
> Y for interaction with their website relating to OS Z.
> If C had a true interest in customer satisfaction, it would make OS Z
> web support accessible regardless of the customer's choice of W, X,
> Y, or A.

Lets say you're in the market for a new car....

You want this car to look like the latest Ferrari, but want it to have the
latest Porsche engine....
Are you going to whine that Ferrari are limiting your choices because they
wont supply you with a Ferrari that has a porsche engine?????

You REALLY need to re think your argument....

> No, my argument is extremely clear.

No it isn't.

You're demanding that Microsoft do something that it DOES NOT have to do.

> Silly me.

You got that right.

--

Replace the obvious with paradise.net to email me
Found Images
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke

"Max Burke" <> wrote:


>
>Let me get this straight....
>
>Are you REALLY saying that by using any Microsoft OS you're limited *BY
>MICROSOFT* to only using software they say you can use?
>
>If so you REALLY need to re think your argument....

Well max. That's exactly what M$ would like to do. But they haven't
bribed enough people in the US GVT to get that to happen yet.. But
given time and they will try to outlaw OSS.. Does Open Office ring a
bell??