Why more forum changes that screwed up even more things??

[Clint1]

The CP layout was properly rendered in IE6 prior to this change.

Yeah.

I realized that if you scroll way down to the bottom of the CP/Settings page to where the left links are, and click any of them, the resultant page is ok! Not only are the left nav links pane back where it should be, but the massive horizontal scroll is also gone. So it would seem that the layout problem is only on the home page for "Settings" and not any of the internal linked pages from it. That leads me to believe there's a coding problem only on the Settings main page. http://www.webproworld.com/webmaster-forum/usercp.php

[rah]

I can certainly understand the need for security updates at a forum. But what I will never understand is why updates have to be product version-specific. If an existing version of something works fine for (in this example) all browsers, then why would anyone make an update discriminate? Why add "something new" to it or change something in it that won't work with previous versions? Especially when it could have remained the same......unless of course that was the specific reason for the update.

That's a vBulletin decision. We were just told by them through a email that there was a problem discovered and we needed to update our forum software. In doing so, it also brought in the new features/bugs. I'm still trying to fix all the little things that we've had pointed out on some of our other forums, and I hope to have it as close to what it was as possible soon.

[Clint1]

That's a vBulletin decision. We were just told by them through a email that there was a problem discovered and we needed to update our forum software. In doing so, it also brought in the new features/bugs.

I understand that, but what I'm saying (generally rhetorical) is "......what I will never understand is why updates have to be product version-specific. If an existing version of something works fine for (in this example) all browsers, then why would anyone make an update discriminate? Why add "something new" to it or change something in it that won't work with previous versions?" It is very simple to get web 'ware to work with any browser, and I never saw the point in adding new junk (new ways of doing the same thing) that does the the exact same thing, yet it won't work with older browsers. If it does the same thing, then why dump on those that choose to use older versions. ?? If it were me, I would want any 'ware I produced to be totally non-discriminatory, and it can be done. (Just sort of thinking out loud).

I'm still trying to fix all the little things that we've had pointed out on some of our other forums, and I hope to have it as close to what it was as possible soon.

Thanks for the update. Actually the main problem is how I described http://www.webproworld.com/webmaster-forum/usercp.php in post #11. I would think most can live with the "cosmetically challenged layout", and huge avatars, although the avatars seems it would be easy to fix.

Thanks Rah.

[SteveGerencser]

I understand that, but what I'm saying (generally rhetorical) is "......what I will never understand is why updates have to be product version-specific. If an existing version of something works fine for (in this example) all browsers, then why would anyone make an update discriminate? Why add "something new" to it or change something in it that won't work with previous versions?" It is very simple to get web 'ware to work with any browser, and I never saw the point in adding new junk (new ways of doing the same thing) that does the the exact same thing, yet it won't work with older browsers. If it does the same thing, then why dump on those that choose to use older versions. ?? If it were me, I would want any 'ware I produced to be totally non-discriminatory, and it can be done. (Just sort of thinking out loud).

You know the answer to that one Clint.. At some point developers have to stop supporting a 10 year old piece of software and focus on more modern technologies.. I stopped supporting IE6 3 years ago, I'm surprised that anyone supports it at all at this point.. And yes, it "can" be done, but at what cost? We can also make web sites Mosaic 1.0 compliant, but who on earth would want to??

I know you say that if it were you you would do it, but that comment alone proves that you haven't built out a serious piece of software with backwards compatibility..

Can you imagine what software bloat would look like if we all maintained backwards compatibility for every piece of software ever written?? Ew.. Besides, you aren't still using Windows 3.1 are you??

[deepsand]

The question here raised by Clint is the same as was raised when WPW moved to vB 4, which is "Why do vBulletin "security" updates seem to bring gratuitous changes in layout?"

Security is a function independent of form, one that, in a virtual realm, need not dictate form.

Imagine were it the case that MS updates brought such things as a reorganization of the ribbons in Excel or Word, or a rearrangement of the toolbars and their buttons in IE. Would users tolerate that?

As for IE6, the fact that so many continue to use it speaks volumes re. a preference for a layout that is clean and simple. That FF copied that layout, and has maintained the basic structure over numerous upgrades, attests to its user friendliness.

[Clint1]

As for IE6, the fact that so many continue to use it speaks volumes re. a preference for a layout that is clean and simple. That FF copied that layout, and has maintained the basic structure over numerous upgrades, attests to its user friendliness.

There's also numerous useful necessary needed tools that won't work with IE later than 6. M$ f'd up real bad when they totally changed the layout of IE later than 6 and made it to where it's not possible to get the IE6 layout.

[Clint1]

You know the answer to that one Clint.. At some point developers have to stop supporting a 10 year old piece of software and focus on more modern technologies..

The question is....WHY?? If previous versions of something worked with particular versions I don't see why later versions cannot also do this. I can think of no legit reason why one would purposely deny previous platforms!

I stopped supporting IE6 3 years ago, I'm surprised that anyone supports it at all at this point.. And yes, it "can" be done, but at what cost? We can also make web sites Mosaic 1.0 compliant, but who on earth would want to??

It shouldn't "cost" anything. Mentioning Mosaic is "apples to oranges". It didn't support jack and had little tools.

I know you say that if it were you you would do it, but that comment alone proves that you haven't built out a serious piece of software with backwards compatibility..

"Proves"?? I've never stated nor even alluded here nor elsewhere that I ever had anything to do with software and I've made no secret of that. "Software" is not what I do for a living.

Can you imagine what software bloat would look like if we all maintained backwards compatibility for every piece of software ever written?? Ew.. Besides, you aren't still using Windows 3.1 are you??

(XP Pro SP3). There are new things that older versions of something will not support. I realize that. The point is, (and I'm not sure how to explain myself here, but I'll try), a vendor/creator should be inclusive far enough back to accommodate (for lack of a better term) "certain things". For example, you mention Win3.1, that's also rather apples to oranges since it was essentially a basic GUI over DOS. It wasn't until Win95 did we get the typical Windows look, interface and Shell. I download software constantly that states "Supports Windows 95 and later" (but sometimes maybe not the latest OS). Which, makes perfect sense. I guess I can maybe equate that analogy here to IE6 being Win95, or maybe more like Win2k or XP. If IE7+ supports 'things' that IE6 does not, then what is the purpose of these "things", and why couldn't the resultant effect of those "things" be achieved using the previous methods? In other words, (in FF or recent IE's) we can go to the "latest greatest website" that has all the bells 'n whistles of "newfangled state-of-the-art website technology", yet it all looks exactly the same as any other website. You see nothing there that's visually ground-breaking or earth shattering that we haven't been seeing for many years; you see the same kind of media, animation, Flash, SWF, etc., etc. Yet the webpage blocks out IE6 users. View it in a recent browser, and it's: "WTF? What gives? I see nothing new". That to me makes no sense whatsoever. Let's say for example it may be a new version of Flash, or JS, that won't support an earlier browser, but yet it looks the same and does the same thing! So what's the point.

I've grown SO TIRED of these threads turning into these asinine "version debates" that I saved some text that I can simply paste:

I got so used to IE3, 4, 5 & 6, and Win95, 98, and XP by using the
same layouts and themes that I can click away at anything at
extreme speed without even having to look. That's some heck of a
neuromuscular facilitation (muscle memory). Having to change a
layout of an OS and browser is a big step backward in efficiency
and productivity. Something of which is obviously no concern to
M$.

I started on IE over 12 years ago I guess, and I became very
proficient with it. It "worked", so I continued to use it.
When FF came out I gave it a try. The plugins are great, but,
I don't like the idea of every new version breaking most of the
plugins. For me, FF is also much slower than IE, on every
reformat. It takes about 20 secs for it to load, and it's very
slow at websites taking much much longer for pages to load.
IE is the fastest browser I've used, and I've tried Safari and
Opera (but that was a few years ago). It also spontaneously
crashes, closing all windows or tabs.

Since my business is "the internet", I am online 12-14 hrs each
day. That much use daily over more than 12 years, I got to the
point long ago that I could use IE "with my eyes closed". I
don't even have to look at the toolbar in order to move my
mouse cursor to ANYWHERE I want to click. That equates to
incredible efficiency. Since IE3, 4, 5, 6, all can have the
same layout, I have lost nothing but only gained productivity
through the various IE incarnations. I'm quite good with
"muscle memory" and memorize the layout of something very
quickly. (Same with my remotes; after using a new one about a
week, I never have to look at them again to operate them). In
keeping with that analogy, I recently had to get a new remote
that had commercial skip because my new HDTV doesn't have it
(none do anymore). Let me tell you, I'm going through hell
trying to get used to that "replacement" remote, because, the
remote I had been using I used for over 15 years! That's a
very long and indelible muscle memory imprint to have to
retrain! The same negative scenario takes place when
changing to a new OS or browser or software that is totally
different from previous versions.

The same thing happens when changing browsers. Any change
would be a big step backward in efficiency and productivity for
me.

If you're even close to being in my situation, you wouldn't be
too keen on changing browsers either.

I've also yet to be told by anyone or find a way that IE7/8/9 can
be made to have the same look and layout of IE6.

So until M$ (or anyone else) comes out with a browser version
that is as stable and as fast as IE6, and can be made to have
the same layout as IE6 with the same tools and no features
removed, I have to stay with IE6.

I don't play favorites company-wise. Like most people, I don't
like M$. I think it sucks the way they totally integrate IE
into the OS's. (Which is probably why IE is so fast, but it's
bad for other browsers, and they KNOW that). I don't like
their monopolizing control and posturing to make the net into
their own image (like google is trying to do). But because of
the reasons mentioned above, I am rather "stuck with" their
browser. (And in case you're wondering about their OS's), it's
the same with their OS. "Why don't you use Linux??" Like IE,
I can use Windows (95-XP) with my eyes closed. I use a PC
so fast, that I have to force myself to work at a literal snail's pace
when I'm trying to show my customers something! They say their
eyes can't keep up with my hand movements! Even if it can be
made to have the same layout as Windows, until Linux comes
out with drivers for ALL of my hardware, and support for ALL of
my software, I am also rather "stuck with" Windows.

If M$ or anyone, came out with a hack, tweak, skin, whatever, that would make IE8 or IE9 look like IE6 with the same features and layout, I'd switch very quickly. Additionally, if M$ or anyone, came out with a hack, tweak, skin, whatever, that would make Win7 (or later) look like XP with the same features and layout, I'd probably switch very quickly. (I would probably still be using Win98 or Win2k if XP didn't have the "Windows Classic Theme" option layout! But for the OS I would only switch if my current software would still work with a newer OS).

M$ has made egregious mistakes and oversights and alienated millions by not giving IE7 and later the option for using the IE6 layout, (and also by not giving later-than-XP OS's the "Classic Windows Theme" option that XP has).

[SteveGerencser]

The question here raised by Clint is the same as was raised when WPW moved to vB 4, which is "Why do vBulletin "security" updates seem to bring gratuitous changes in layout?"

Security is a function independent of form, one that, in a virtual realm, need not dictate form.

Mostly because security rollouts tend include upgrades as well.. Also, especially when it comes to template based sites, many "features" are added by site owners in a way that is overwritten by the security upgrade.. This forces them to go back and re-ad the tweaks that they had made.. I have a couple pieces of software that I use that do this..

As for IE6, the fact that so many continue to use it speaks volumes re. a preference for a layout that is clean and simple. That FF copied that layout, and has maintained the basic structure over numerous upgrades, attests to its user friendliness.

Yeah, 3% market share and falling at a rate of about .3% to .4% every month for the last year..

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_explorer.asp

Personally, I have zero sympathy or compassion for anyone that refuses to upgrade their software in a reasonable time frame.. The fact that IE6 is a full 3 versions and 11 years old..

[deepsand]

Mostly because security rollouts tend include upgrades as well.. Also, especially when it comes to template based sites, many "features" are added by site owners in a way that is overwritten by the security upgrade.. This forces them to go back and re-ad the tweaks that they had made.

That makes a whole more sense than does the usual simplistic "it was a security patch that broke it" blurb.

Yeah, 3% market share and falling at a rate of about .3% to .4% every month for the last year.

Depends on the user segment in question.

Personally, I have zero sympathy or compassion for anyone that refuses to upgrade their software in a reasonable time frame.. The fact that IE6 is a full 3 versions and 11 years old..

And I've little tolerance for those who insist that new is perforce better. The press to constantly change is highly inefficient.

[SteveGerencser]

And I've little tolerance for those who insist that new is perforce better. The press to constantly change is highly inefficient.

I would agree with you, to a point.. How long do you continue to support old tech? Old anything? Do we still use DC electricity in homes? Horse and buggies? Blimps instead of airplanes? For that matter, steamships vs airliners? 8088 processors? Amber monochrome displays?

Annual upgrades might excessive. But with Moore's law and decade old web browsers you are looking at being 6 times behind the rest of the world. And as the stats say, IE6 use is at 3%. How far down do you support it in an effort to appease the people that don't like change? 2%? 1%? .0001%? My personal threshold is 10%. When use falls below that I stop going out of my way to support it.