[Paco Loco]

Does anyone know if Internet Explorer installs and runs OK on the new intel macs?

I am assuming (hoping) it will install as normal and then run seemlessly under rosetta...? If you have tried this then please let me know.

Thanks, P


(P.S. IE can be downloaded here: http://browser.evolt.org/?ie/mac/5.2.3_OS_X )

[JKT]

IE doesn't even run seamlessly on the PPC macs.

[Wevah]

It runs under Rosetta, but I have no idea if it installs (it was copied over from my old PowerBook when I migrated). It's also slow, but that's a given.

[torifile]

Why would you want to? I could test it for you, but I'm not going to pollute my computer with that steaming pile of outdated ****.

[Wevah]

The only reason I can think of is for site testing, and that's only if the client is giving the developer extra cash to make it work in Mac IE.

[Paco Loco]

Yes, I know it seems a little crazy of me...

... however I have the pleasure of maintaining some legacy web based systems which contain lots of horrible IE specific scripting. As long as people can still access them using internet explorer then it means I don't have to rewrite them, which is a good thing.

I would really apreciate it if someone with an intel mac would try installing IE for me just to see if it works... if not I will have to buy one myself just to test it (hmm... not such a bad idea actually!)

[Wevah]

Forcing users to use IE is kind of crazy, though.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Paco Loco

Yes, I know it seems a little crazy of me...

... however I have the pleasure of maintaining some legacy web based systems which contain lots of horrible IE specific scripting. As long as people can still access them using internet explorer then it means I don't have to rewrite them, which is a good thing.

People can't use Mac IE unless they already had it, because Mac IE is no longer available for download. This means that your users can't download it, and it also means that no one can download the installer to test that for you.

You have to rewrite the scripts. Sorry.

[Paco Loco]

You can still download it from a number of browser archives, such as this one:

http://browser.evolt.org/?ie/mac/5.2.3_OS_X

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Paco Loco

You can still download it from a number of browser archives, such as this one:

http://browser.evolt.org/?ie/mac/5.2.3_OS_X

Okay...

1. Most people are not going to know about these archive sites

2. Even if you do download IE and it works, it's going to be slow as hell in Rosetta

3. IE will never again be updated, so it's only a matter of time before some OS update breaks it, seeing as how Apple doesn't seem to give a crap about backwards compatibility (see: Classic on Intel)

4. Most Mac users prefer not to use IE and will simply not visit your site

5. All Linux users are not able to use IE and will simply not visit your site

6. A growing number of Windows users prefer not to use IE and will simply not visit your site

7. It is extremely inconsiderate to force a user to use a specific browser, especially a grossly inferior and out-of-date one such as Mac IE

8. You will lose a lot of visitors by going this route, including almost all of your Mac-using visitors and all of the Linux ones

[Paco Loco]

OK guys, I appreciate what you are trying to do here and believe me i agree with you... however you have no idea what the situation is here... I guess I will have to explain;

The 'website' I am supporting is in fact a piece of browser based software which is used by a very small number (less than 100) of business users, who access it via a secure web connection.
We regularly have to visit users in person to train them as the system is complex to say the least, hence it is usual for us to take a CD with us and install software on their machines when we're teaching them to use it.
Hence it doesn't matter that IE is rubbish, or that people don't have it on their machines by default, or that they don't like using it, or that microsoft don't distribute it any more. What matters is that the users can access the system without us having to spend time and money refactoring it - end of story.

So... someone please just answer my question!!!

Thanks.

[msuper69]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

...

3. IE will never again be updated, so it's only a matter of time before some OS update breaks it, seeing as how Apple doesn't seem to give a crap about backwards compatibility (see: Classic on Intel)

...

Don't you think the switch to Intel is a good time to finally kill of the old MacOS once and for all? It's been 5 years since OS X was introduced. Seems like Apple actually supported it for a long time. I for one could see the handwriting on the wall as soon as I first installed and used the OS X βeta; the Classic MacOS was on it's way out. As time passed, I slowly replaced all of the Classic apps I used with native OS X versions.

Perhaps you have some legacy code you aren't particularly interested in rewriting?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by msuper69

Don't you think the switch to Intel is a good time to finally kill of the old MacOS once and for all? It's been 5 years since OS X was introduced. Seems like Apple actually supported it for a long time.

Not really. 5 years is nothing - before the Intel switch, the Mac had backward compatibility going all the way back to 1984. In 2005, that was 21 years.

Perhaps you have some legacy code you aren't particularly interested in rewriting?

I've never written any software for OS 9. That WaitNextEvent() crap was a pain in the ass, and it wasn't worth my time. However, I have a whole library of old apps that have never been updated for OS X, some of which are still useful. I also have a crapload of old games which will never be updated again, many of which are much more fun than modern games. None of this stuff I have the source to, so I wouldn't be able to Carbonize it even if I had the inclination.

In addition, my dad is a lawyer, and unfortunately for him, the legal code in the state he lives in is only available in a proprietary format that is readable only by an app called "Folio VIP". Unfortunately, the company that made it discontinued the Mac version some time ago, so it only works in Classic. The guy who distributes the files won't do the reasonable thing and convert to something usable like PDF, and the format of the files is completely opaque and not readable by anything, so the only options for him would be to keep using an old PowerPC Mac until the end of time, get the Windows version to run in WINE (we've tried it once, couldn't get it to work), or switch to Windows. Having a separate PC to view the code on is not an option since he needs to have it on the laptop when he goes places.

You see, there are cases like this, and others also in which eliminating Classic will bite users in the ass. Apple should just stick some kind of cheap emulator into the Classic environment (they could possibly use the one from SheepShaver, although they'd have to GPL the Classic environment - not a problem since they are currently going to kill it anyway). It wouldn't even have to be a good emulator - if it were slow, the hardware would just catch up anyway, since the target will be static once the last PPC machine ships, and the Intel hardware will presumably keep improving over time. If it worked at one point, it probably wouldn't need to be updated much at all to work on newer OS versions, so it would be a write once and forget kind of deal. It just seems to me that Apple is being really irresponsible to its users by arbitrarily cutting off software beyond a certain age like this.

[sushiism]

Some idiots still use it, a designer I once worked near did... that said he also ran adobe acrobat reader in classic and every time he viewed a different preference pane he closed system preferences and opened it again instead of pressing show all.

[inkhead]

I'm sorry but at this point you should put in a customized redirect message for anyone using mac IE. If they are it should link them to a modern browser download and tell them they are freaking supported.

I'm tired of supporting mac IE users. of the 2million hits month about 30 come from mac IE users and we have made a nice way to let them know STOP. and send them to safari or mozilla. It appears they all take our advice and download.

[lookmark]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

In addition, my dad is a lawyer, and unfortunately for him, the legal code in the state he lives in is only available in a proprietary format that is readable only by an app called "Folio VIP". Unfortunately, the company that made it discontinued the Mac version some time ago, so it only works in Classic. The guy who distributes the files won't do the reasonable thing and convert to something usable like PDF, and the format of the files is completely opaque and not readable by anything, so the only options for him would be to keep using an old PowerPC Mac until the end of time, get the Windows version to run in WINE (we've tried it once, couldn't get it to work), or switch to Windows. Having a separate PC to view the code on is not an option since he needs to have it on the laptop when he goes places.

Not great for your pop -- though hopefully either SheepShaver or future virtualization options will address the problem.

But it's a two-edged sword. Personally, I can't *wait* until Classic support dies so my company will be forced to drop using Outlook Express and upgrade us to Mail or Entourage.

Being forced to run Classic and Outlook Express -- which always needs to be open --in 2006 isn't fun. (And yes, it's just an idiotic corporate policy, but these things seem to last, due to laziness and corporate mandates, until they're forced to change.)

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by lookmark

Not great for your pop -- though hopefully either SheepShaver or future virtualization options will address the problem.

I've set up SheepShaver on a machine, and while it works, it is very buggy, and it is a huge pain in the ass to set up as:

1. There isn't a GUI - you have to edit config files with a text editor

2. There's almost no instructions on how to get it working - you have to scrounge around on the Internet for guidance

3. There appears to be no sound support, at least when I run it on my G5 (not a big deal)

4. It only works with Mac OS 9.0.4 and earlier - 9.1 and higher aren't supported. 9.0.4, incidentally, is quite difficult to obtain

5. You have a chicken-and-the-egg problem with the ROM - SheepShaver requires a copy of the Mac OS ROM file that used to be inside the System Folder in OS 9, but it only works with very specific versions, so the one you have on your old OS 9 installation probably won't cut it. To get the specific version SheepShaver needs, you have to find out what version that is somewhere on the Internet, then you have to download a particular version of the Mac OS ROM Update from Apple's download site. Here's the kicker - you now have to use TomeViewer to extract the ROM file from the installer... but you need Classic working to use TomeViewer!

(Does anyone know of any documentation anywhere describing the installation tome format? It would make it possible to make an OS X program to open the files, but as it is the files seem to be compressed with some proprietary compression scheme that no one knows).

6. SheepShaver is just cumbersome to use. My dad is a non-technical user, and there's no way he's going to be able to deal with setting up and using this program. And even when it works, it locks up all the time...

[Big Mac]

While I understand what you're saying, Charles, Apple isn't going to release a half-assed OS 9 emulator for the Mactels. Classic is only fit to run on genuine Macs anyway. (I have my flame-proof suit on, FYI.)

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Paco Loco

OK guys, I appreciate what you are trying to do here and believe me i agree with you... however you have no idea what the situation is here... I guess I will have to explain;

The 'website' I am supporting is in fact a piece of browser based software which is used by a very small number (less than 100) of business users, who access it via a secure web connection.
We regularly have to visit users in person to train them as the system is complex to say the least, hence it is usual for us to take a CD with us and install software on their machines when we're teaching them to use it.
Hence it doesn't matter that IE is rubbish, or that people don't have it on their machines by default, or that they don't like using it, or that microsoft don't distribute it any more. What matters is that the users can access the system without us having to spend time and money refactoring it - end of story.

So... someone please just answer my question!!!

Thanks.

We're telling you you're only biding your time. Any day now Apple could break IE on the Mac. I would re-write the system now before you have to worry about it later because you will have to worry about it later.

[goMac]

CharlesS - I completely agree with your point. It would have been great to see Classic support built entirely into OS X. This is why I keep a Windows box around. Pretty good compatibility. But adding full Classic support would have taken a lot of time and endangered OS X. Getting OS X without full classic support imo is better than getting no OS X at all. The last thing we needed was another Copland. Look at all the problems with Longhorn and Microsoft trying to maintain legacy support.

I also have had similar problems with ShapeShifter, leading me to give up on it (Basilisk doesn't support the right software under emulation).

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by goMac

CharlesS - I completely agree with your point. It would have been great to see Classic support built entirely into OS X. This is why I keep a Windows box around. Pretty good compatibility. But adding full Classic support would have taken a lot of time and endangered OS X. Getting OS X without full classic support imo is better than getting no OS X at all. The last thing we needed was another Copland. Look at all the problems with Longhorn and Microsoft trying to maintain legacy support.

Since Classic has always behaved more or less as a separate application, it's not really built that deeply into the OS. You've basically got some code to make it redirect to the Classic environment when you double-click Classic apps and documents that belong to Classic apps, and you have it faking out the Dock to make Classic apps look like full-fledged apps. You also have the "rootless" mode hiding the Desktop and support for copy-and-paste between the two environments, and other than those things it's pretty much it's own little world. Since most of those hacks are already written, the only thing that would have had to be added, in my estimation, would have been some sort of emulation layer. And since it's so separate from the rest of the OS, I can't really see it endangering the rest of the OS, especially since the tricky parts, integration-wise, are already written.

Having Classic fully built-in to OS X would have been nice, but I can understand why that was impractical to do. But I'd like to have some Classic support even if it's not full Classic support. Classic was slightly ugly and clunky, but it was French cuisine compared to the likes of SheepShaver.

[Paco Loco]

Originally Posted by goMac

We're telling you you're only biding your time. Any day now Apple could break IE on the Mac. I would re-write the system now before you have to worry about it later because you will have to worry about it later.

That is true, I know, but we really do not have the resources to do that re-factoring work right now.

My original question still stands...

[Kristoff]

Shame on you for not being W3C compliant in the first place.


(or whomever wrote the app)

[ccwillows]

Hi. I just tested IE5.2 which was migrated from my Tibook over to my Macbook. I checked a few sites for you and it seems to run fine...apple.com, msn.com, amazon.com. Are there any specific sites that you need to know about?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Paco Loco

That is true, I know, but we really do not have the resources to do that re-factoring work right now.

My original question still stands...

Be aware if it's ActiveX code you're going to have to re-write it for IE7 on Windows anyway.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Since Classic has always behaved more or less as a separate application, it's not really built that deeply into the OS. You've basically got some code to make it redirect to the Classic environment when you double-click Classic apps and documents that belong to Classic apps, and you have it faking out the Dock to make Classic apps look like full-fledged apps. You also have the "rootless" mode hiding the Desktop and support for copy-and-paste between the two environments, and other than those things it's pretty much it's own little world. Since most of those hacks are already written, the only thing that would have had to be added, in my estimation, would have been some sort of emulation layer. And since it's so separate from the rest of the OS, I can't really see it endangering the rest of the OS, especially since the tricky parts, integration-wise, are already written.

Having Classic fully built-in to OS X would have been nice, but I can understand why that was impractical to do. But I'd like to have some Classic support even if it's not full Classic support. Classic was slightly ugly and clunky, but it was French cuisine compared to the likes of SheepShaver.

My problem with rootless was it killed my favorite Classic games (read: X-Wing Collectors Edition).

[Paco Loco]

Thanks ccwillows, just need to know that ir uns really. I suppose from that I can assume that it would install too (rather than migrate)... I hope that is a fair assumption.

goMac - no, thankfully it is not activex... phew.

[Hal Itosis]

You know... if someone used IE since 1998 or something, they may have accumulated
several hundred .waf files (web archive format), containing memorable and/or possibly
useful information. They might want to keep IE around, so they could easily view them.

(guilty)

[Love Calm Quiet]

If they've got Mactels, wouldn't it be a better investment to get VirtualPC/XP-Home (or that $60 alt to VPC) and use IE-Windoze?

[Love Calm Quiet]

Originally Posted by Paco Loco

Does anyone know if Internet Explorer installs and runs OK on the new intel macs?

BTW: "Install" ? That would be a drag and drop thing. It's a run issue.

[Ilgaz]

to keep enjoying/using Pacifist , I delete this post and stop from posting any forum Charles posts.

It is a bit "emotional" thing, not related to Pacifist.

Yes, microsoft codes "PWNED" preflight scripts...

Apologies, have a nice day.


Ilgaz Ocal
Istanbul

(no delete post option)

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Ilgaz

3) Dragging and dropping it may not work.

Well, I'm not able to confirm this for sure, since the browser.evolt.org link posted somewhere back up in the thread doesn't work (again raising the issue of the browser not even being available to customers at all), but I seem to remember the installer only putting an application in the /Applications folder and a few fonts that IE would probably work without in /Library, so drag-and-drop should work. I could be wrong about this, though.

4) IE comforms to OS X file structure standards. Cache is at Caches, Prefs are in Prefs, Certificates are in OS X certificates. There is no such thing as "waf files everywhere".

You obviously didn't read Hal's post very carefully.

5) Every aspect of OS X is _designed_ in a way that whatever is installed by "common" ways such as native installer, drag drop WON'T CHANGE OR HURT OS X.

Now this is simply BS. Given that the Installer can:

1. Authenticate as root

2. Install files anywhere it wants as root, overwriting what's already there

3. Run arbitrary shell scripts as root

The Installer can easily do basically whatever it wants. You could make an installer that overwrote /mach_kernel with a text file containing the text "pwned!", and it would do it very happily (and you wouldn't be able to boot anymore). You could make a preflight shell script that executed rm -rf / and it would erase every attached disk without complaining (in fact, something sort of like this happened once - read up on the iTunes 2.0 fiasco).

[bradoesch]

I've installed IE on new machines a few times by just copying the app. Works fine.

[24klogos]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

While I understand what you're saying, Charles, Apple isn't going to release a half-assed OS 9 emulator for the Mactels. Classic is only fit to run on genuine Macs anyway. (I have my flame-proof suit on, FYI.)

Totally agree w/u big mac!

[lookmark]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

In addition, my dad is a lawyer, and unfortunately for him, the legal code in the state he lives in is only available in a proprietary format that is readable only by an app called "Folio VIP". Unfortunately, the company that made it discontinued the Mac version some time ago, so it only works in Classic. The guy who distributes the files won't do the reasonable thing and convert to something usable like PDF, and the format of the files is completely opaque and not readable by anything, so the only options for him would be to keep using an old PowerPC Mac until the end of time, get the Windows version to run in WINE (we've tried it once, couldn't get it to work), or switch to Windows. Having a separate PC to view the code on is not an option since he needs to have it on the laptop when he goes places.

Your father's situation stuck in my head, for some reason. Apropos of this, it seems your best bet when your dad upgrades is a MacBook/MBP + WinXP SP2 Home ($60-90, OEM, $140 retail) + Boot Camp or virtualization software ($50).

No?

[CharlesS]

Well, the situation definitely looks better now that there's a virtualization program out. Rebooting all the time is a pain in the ass, so Boot Camp is definitely a last resort.

With that said, though, having to pay over $200 just to make this work ($140 XP SP2 + $50 virtualization software + tax + virus software) is annoying when it worked for free on the PowerPC Macs.

[lookmark]

It's true. Of course, if you have a spare XP SP2 disc lying around, it could be less.

I believe the Windows OneCare beta is currently free. (Or I guess you could just shut off all access to the internet in XP.)

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by lookmark

It's true. Of course, if you have a spare XP SP2 disc lying around, it could be less.

Heh, yeah right.

I believe the Windows OneCare beta is currently free. (Or I guess you could just shut off all access to the internet in XP.)

Yeah, looking through the Parallels software's documentation, it does seem that it's pretty easy simply to avoid turning on the network support. I wonder how one would transfer files back and forth between the native and emulated environments, though. If the networking is on, this is fairly straightforward, but this software doesn't seem to provide a mechanism to transfer the files directly like Virtual PC does.

Also, the docs seem vague about whether the software can use the CD-ROM drive directly, or whether you need to make .iso images of your CDs. The latter would be a showstopper, since my dad gets updates each month in CD format that would need to go into the emulated environment.

Sigh... this reminds me of another reason Classic was so much easier to use - it was able to just use your hard drive, and access all the same files...

[Just3D]

Use firefox. It's the best... =) It'll take a while to get used to... But it's awesome.

[gasgit]

I've just install IE 5.2.3 on my mac intel: it works!

[Dark Helmet]

I was surprised to find out it didn't even come with my new Dual G5.

Not that i want it but there is the odd site where I need it.