Dreamweaver previews not opening in Internet Explorer

On Nov 10, 2006, at 3:29 PM, Sharon Stevenson wrote:

> Haven't used my Dreamweaver MX in a long while, now find that when
> I ask it to test pages in IE 5.2.3, IE opens but the address of the
> page I want to view does NOT appear in the address window.
>
> Dreamweaver forums gave me no help on this. It works fine on my
> desktop iMac, but not on my PowerBook. I edited the browers again
> for good measure, but nothing helps.
>
> What does one do when we can't check for appearance in IE? Forget
> about it and rely on Firefox and Safari?
>
>
>
> [Well, it does sound like a configuration problem on your iMac, but
> I have to say, the number of people using IE on the Mac regularly
> these days is small and undoubtedly dropping, given its age and
> known dead status. -Adam]

I'm one of the designers who has given up on testing on IE 5 browsers.

But if you're running problems with Dreamweaver, Webweavers is a very
helpful e-mail list that includes some published DW experts and MM
employees:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/webweavers/subscribe?hl=en

Marilyn

Will look at Webweavers, thanks. Adam, I realize that Mac people don't use IE much, but my site will be read,
hopefully by a lot more than Mac folks, for that reason, i am concerned about how it looks in IE, even though
goodness knows those silly folks ought to have already switched to Firefox or Camino, or something sensible!! :-)
     For the life of me I have no idea of why it's doing this. It's weird that IE opens with the F12 browser
button, but simply will not put the address of the chosen page in the address box. Again...sigh. Hah, or maybe
IE wants to be the primary browser...just thought of that, I'll try that.

But thanks for tips.
ss

On 13 Nov 2006, at 18:48 , ssteve wrote:
> Will look at Webweavers, thanks. Adam, I realize that Mac people
> don't use IE much, but my site will be read, hopefully by a lot
> more than Mac folks, for that reason, i am concerned about how it
> looks in IE, even though goodness knows those silly folks ought to
> have already switched to Firefox or Camino, or something
> sensible!! :-)

IE5 Mac != IE5 PC. Not in anyway, shape, or form. IE5 Mac was a
decent web browser with a pretty darn good rendering engine and was
remarkably consistent. Pre-OS X it was the best web browser for the
Mac. IE5 PC was a steam-- er, a load of monk-- um. Not a good
program. At all.

You can make no assumptions about IE5 (or more likely, 5.5) display
on the PC based on IE5 Mac. None. At all. No, really, NONE. If
you need to test your site with IE5.5 you have one choice, load it in
IE5.5.

On Nov 13, 2006, at 5:48 PM, ssteve wrote:

> Will look at Webweavers, thanks. Adam, I realize that Mac people
> don't use IE much, but my site will be read,
> hopefully by a lot more than Mac folks, for that reason, i am
> concerned about how it looks in IE

How the site looks in Mac IE 5--which was a good browser in its day--
has little to do with how it looks in Windows IE (any version). It
needs to be tested in Win IE 6 and Win IE 7 (at least).

   --John

am 14.11.2006 11:02 Uhr schrieb tidbits-talktidbits.com unter
tidbits-talktidbits.com:

>> [Well, it does sound like a configuration problem on your iMac, but
>> I have to say, the number of people using IE on the Mac regularly
>> these days is small and undoubtedly dropping, given its age and
>> known dead status. -Adam]
>
> I'm one of the designers who has given up on testing on IE 5 browsers.

What this comes down to is, all the people who own older Macintoshs running
OS 8.6 (or 9) can't get any information from the Internet sometime in the
future and will have to buy a new Mac running OS X or will be lost
(regardless whether they can afford that or not...).

Internet Explorer 5.0.4 is the last version to run under On Mac OS 8.6 and
it's absolutely needed as Netscape 7 sometimes won't display pages and has
problems downloading and saving.

I see the time when I'll cancel my ISP and stop surfing the Intenet 'cause I
can't get any pages or information displayed. But I'll rather stop using the
Internet than shelling out thousands of dollars to replace my SCSI
peripherals which don't work with the new Macs any longer.

IMNSHO it's bad practice that even the simplest web pages need some obscure
version of Flash Player, need this gizmo or that instead of just displaying
the information in a clear and simple way.

Udo Huth, Germany

On 11/17/06 09:02, "Udo Huth" <u.hutht-online.de> wrote:

>>> [Well, it does sound like a configuration problem on your iMac, but
>>> I have to say, the number of people using IE on the Mac regularly
>>> these days is small and undoubtedly dropping, given its age and
>>> known dead status. -Adam]
>>
>> I'm one of the designers who has given up on testing on IE 5 browsers.
>
> What this comes down to is, all the people who own older Macintoshs running
> OS 8.6 (or 9) can't get any information from the Internet sometime in the
> future and will have to buy a new Mac running OS X or will be lost
> (regardless whether they can afford that or not...).

Such is life. That OS has been out of active development for almost 7 years.
If you want to use near-decade old software, don't expect the rest of the
world to code for you.

--
John C. Welch Writer/Analyst
Bynkii.com Mac and other opinions
jwelchbynkii.com

John C. Welch wrote:

> On 11/17/06 09:02, "Udo Huth" <u.hutht-online.de> wrote:
>
>>>> [Well, it does sound like a configuration problem on your iMac, but
>>>> I have to say, the number of people using IE on the Mac regularly
>>>> these days is small and undoubtedly dropping, given its age and
>>>> known dead status. -Adam]
>>>
>>> I'm one of the designers who has given up on testing on IE 5
>>> browsers.
>>
>> What this comes down to is, all the people who own older
>> Macintoshs running
>> OS 8.6 (or 9) can't get any information from the Internet sometime
>> in the
>> future and will have to buy a new Mac running OS X or will be lost
>> (regardless whether they can afford that or not...).
>
> Such is life. That OS has been out of active development for almost
> 7 years.
> If you want to use near-decade old software, don't expect the rest
> of the
> world to code for you.

That's right.

And even the oldest bondi blue iMac is capable of running Mac OS X
10.3.9 which supports a variety of modern browsers. Your preferred
auction site may offer some for a reasonable price for this nearly 8
years old machine.

Cheers,
Michael

> But I'll rather stop using the Internet than shelling out thousands
> of dollars to replace my SCSI peripherals which don't work with the
> new Macs any longer.

Don't worry just yet: judging from its website, the current version
of the iCab browser is still offered "for MacOS 8.5 and newer, for
MacOSX 10.1 and newer, as Universal Binary and in different
languages", so you might want to give that one a try.

<http://www.icab.de>

Regards,

Jochen.

Udo Huth complained:
> What this comes down to is, all the people who own older Macintoshs running
> OS 8.6 (or 9) can't get any information from the Internet sometime in the
> future and will have to buy a new Mac running OS X or will be lost
> (regardless whether they can afford that or not...).

at which John C. Welch sneered:
>Such is life. That OS has been out of active development for almost 7 years.
>If you want to use near-decade old software, don't expect the rest of the
>world to code for you.

I'm on Udo's side. As a Webmaster, I am more concerned with
maximizing the availability and accessibility of the information I
publish than with producing eye candy for the masses. The great
majority of the Webpages I produce will validate as HTML 2.0 except
for complicated links to pages elsewhere, or an occasional
non-essential alignment sub-parameter. In almost ten years of public
use, I've never had anyone complain that my display style was too
simple to be worth reading.

As it happens, my workhorse machines are a PowerMac 9600/200MP
running MacOS 8.1 (now more than 10 years old) and a 486 PC running
DOS 6.0 (now more than 12 years old). They are augmented by a G4 MDD
running OS X 10.3.9, which is less than three years old but already
being obsoleted by new versions of software which will only run under
10.4 on Intel machines. (But those new versions don't offer any
features that I need. So "newer" does not necessarily mean
"better".) If/when the PC fails, its software and database will
migrate to Virtual PC (already configured under OS X), but that's
much less comfortable to use.

Flash Player and other complex ultra-modern software are indeed
valuable for the things that can be accomplished only with them. I
delight in Google Maps, for example, and I provide an easy way for
those of my visitors who can use it to do so. But for those who
can't, I provide at least one simpler mapping alternative.

IMNSHO it's bad practice to treat fancy technology of any kind as the
only way to go. Communication depends not only on a common
understanding of the meanings of words but also on common methods of
transmitting and receiving those words. The more those channels are
restricted, the less communication occurs, the more opportunities for
misunderstandings arise, the more society deteriorates.

Carl Scott Zimmerman, Campanologist
Co-Webmaster, www.GCNA.org
Webmaster, www.TowerBells.org

On 18-Nov-2006, at 13:04, Jochen Wolters wrote:
>> But I'll rather stop using the Internet than shelling out thousands
>> of dollars to replace my SCSI peripherals which don't work with the
>> new Macs any longer.
>
> Don't worry just yet: judging from its website, the current version
> of the iCab browser is still offered "for MacOS 8.5 and newer, for
> MacOSX 10.1 and newer, as Universal Binary and in different
> languages", so you might want to give that one a try.

I just looked at iCab for the first time in... oh, 7 years or so.
Version 3 is a pretty nice browser, but it locked up when I tried to
use it with Google Calendars and Google Spreadsheets (which is what
we were trying to do with an OS 8.5 machine since IE doesn't work
with either of those sites). We bought a mini instead and the user
will no be backing up to CD-Rs instead of her 4 10+ year old Zip
carts for her SCSI Zip drive.

[This thread is becoming all too familiar sounding. Let's try to bring it to a close, please. -Adam]


On 19-Nov-2006, at 21:49, Carl S Zimmerman wrote:
> Udo Huth complained:
>> What this comes down to is, all the people who own older
>> Macintoshs running
>> OS 8.6 (or 9) can't get any information from the Internet
>> sometime in the
>> future and will have to buy a new Mac running OS X or will be lost
>> (regardless whether they can afford that or not...).
>
> at which John C. Welch sneered:
>> Such is life. That OS has been out of active development for
>> almost 7 years.
>> If you want to use near-decade old software, don't expect the rest
>> of the
>> world to code for you.
>
> I'm on Udo's side.

I am to, in theory. Sorta. I am also inline with John Welch's
position that if you're still running 7 year old machine for web
browsing (which has been around only about 10-12 years, really<1>),
then you gets what youse gets, and there's no sense whining about it.

> As a Webmaster, I am more concerned with maximizing the
> availability and accessibility of the information I publish than
> with producing eye candy for the masses. The great majority of the
> Webpages I produce will validate as HTML 2.0 except for complicated
> links to pages elsewhere, or an occasional non-essential alignment
> sub-parameter.

I don't go nearly that far, as I like HTML4 and XHTML too much, and I
love CSS. However, my pages display ok in links or lynx, and if they
are useable on a text-only browser and they look nice in Safari and
Firefox and aren't too horrible in IE6, then I consider that a job
well done.

Now I will start testing against IE7 as well as 6.mumble, but I am
not going to go back to Netscape 3 of NSCA just to check on 0.1% of
the browsers out there.

My take is standards first, display in Firefox/Safari second, display
in links/lynx, check for horrible issue in IE 6.

Here are some numbers:

2006 IE7 IE6 IE5 Fx Moz N7/8 O7/8/9
October 3.1% 54.5% 3.2% 28.8% 2.4% 0.3% 1.4% = 93.7%
September 2.5% 55.6% 4.0% 27.3% 2.3% 0.4% 1.6%
August 2.0% 56.2% 4.1% 27.1% 2.3% 0.3% 1.6%
July 1.9% 56.3% 4.2% 25.5% 2.3% 0.4% 1.4%
June 1.6% 58.2% 4.3% 24.9% 2.2% 0.3% 1.4%

Source:
<http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp>

> Flash Player and other complex ultra-modern software are indeed
> valuable for the things that can be accomplished only with them. I
> delight in Google Maps, for example, and I provide an easy way for
> those of my visitors who can use it to do so.

Well, Google Maps has nothing to do with flash, which is horrible and
hideous and evil a good 80% of the time and quite useful and neat the
other 20%.

> IMNSHO it's bad practice to treat fancy technology of any kind as the
> only way to go. Communication depends not only on a common
> understanding of the meanings of words but also on common methods of
> transmitting and receiving those words. The more those channels are
> restricted, the less communication occurs, the more opportunities for
> misunderstandings arise, the more society deteriorates.

One of the things I like about CSS and HTML4 is that the information
is all still there, regardless of browser version. Sure it won't
look as good on something old, but then again, I have no way to test
Netscape3 or IE4 displays of my pages anyway. I used to have an iMac
that still had 8.5 on it, but it died.

<1> Yes, i know NCSA Mosaic was released in 1993, but really, no one
but a few gopher geeks and archie mehitabels<2> ever heard of it back
then.

<2> It's a joke, Google "archie mehitabel" if you don't get it. If
you still don't get it google "archie gopher".

I think that the other important factor to consider is that you don't
know who will want to access your website, and from where. There was
a time when a lot of websites seemed to think, "Windows IE has 95%+
of the market, so we can just ignore the rest". The dominance of
Windows IE seemed assured. But the rise of mobile devices with web
browsers found a lot of these Windows IE users wanting access from a
non-IE browser. This sidestepped the logic that Mac/Linux users could
be ignored because it was unlikely either platform would unseat
Windows. By maximising availability and accessibility, using
standards, and avoiding unnecessary complexities a website can be
more easily used and adapted on new devices as they arise.

_________________
=> Jolin Warren, Edinburgh, Scotland

[OK, this thread will be shutting down very soon... -Adam]


On Nov 20, 2006, at 2:10 PM, Jolin M Warren wrote:

> "Windows IE has 95%+
> of the market, so we can just ignore the rest". The dominance of
> Windows IE seemed assured. But the rise of mobile devices with web
> browsers found a lot of these Windows IE users wanting access from a
> non-IE browser. This sidestepped the logic that Mac/Linux users could
> be ignored because it was unlikely either platform would unseat
> Windows. By maximising availability and accessibility, using
> standards, and avoiding unnecessary complexities a website can be
> more easily used and adapted on new devices as they arise.

What is actually happening in the wireless web space is that people
are not browsing web pages in the traditional sense; what they are
doing is generally place or entertainment oriented. They want to find
directions, access lists of local restaurants, find parking garages,
download audio and video content, etc. Flash, which scales
beautifully, tends to work better than HTML content, standards based
or not.

Marilyn