29 May, 2008, kiasyn wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
Came accross this - http://tredosoft.com/Multiple_IE

check it out
29 May, 2008, Asylumius wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
There's also ie4linux, which installs 5, 5.5, and 6. It requires wine, though.
30 May, 2008, Darwin wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
kiasyn said:
Came accross this - http://tredosoft.com/Multiple_IE

check it out
The comments on that page are amusing to read.
30 May, 2008, Guest wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
One IE is bad enough. I can't imagine the headache of having multiples :)
30 May, 2008, Asylumius wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
It's nice to have IE6 on Linux to test how sites will look when you don't have a PC around.
30 May, 2008, Pedlar wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
*shudders at the thought of any IE*
30 May, 2008, exeter wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
30 May, 2008, Guest wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Wicked. That browsershots page is pretty cool, and indicates my blog is correctly rendered on all but the old IEs and a couple of obscure programs.
30 May, 2008, Darwin wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
exeter said:
Believe it or not, but that's actually a useful site.
30 May, 2008, Fizban wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
Tested tbamud.com everything seemed to work except on:

Safari 3.1.1 (Windows XP)

and all but the following that did display it displayed it correctly as well (these few showed the page but lost some of the formatting, and coloring of background etc.)

IE 5.01 (XP)
IE 5.5 (Win 2000)


Also this site here, also rocks: http://www.crossbrowsertesting.com
30 May, 2008, Kayle wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Tested MW's development forums, All displayed properly except for:

IE 5.01 - Didn't handle the <div float:right> very well, and didn't like the translucent background to the banner.
IE 5.5 - Same as 5.01
IE 6.0 - Handled the float, but still screwed up the image.

Dillo 0.8.6 on Linux - This one did not like the css AT ALL. None of it parsed. But that's expected from some browser I've never heard of.
02 Jun, 2008, exeter wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
Kayle said:
Dillo 0.8.6 on Linux - This one did not like the css AT ALL. None of it parsed. But that's expected from some browser I've never heard of.


That's more or less by design. Dillo is intended to be a *very* lightweight GTK-based browser. All it does is parse and render HTML (and, very quickly, I might add – it can load Yahoo.com faster than Firefox can startup on my machine). So, don't sweat it if your CSS doesn't work; it ain't supposed to. :-)
02 Jun, 2008, The_Fury wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote


You know that this site could be used to do some harm, i ran the test with all browsers selected on my web server, logged into the control panel to see the CPU usage hitting 177% it wouldn't take a lot to script up a few 100 tests an hour on someones web server and lag them to a halt, especially to those of us on VPS type systems where resources are finite and there is no load balancing going on.
02 Jun, 2008, exeter wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
The_Fury said:
Quote


You know that this site could be used to do some harm, i ran the test with all browsers selected on my web server, logged into the control panel to see the CPU usage hitting 177% it wouldn't take a lot to script up a few 100 tests an hour on someones web server and lag them to a halt, especially to those of us on VPS type systems where resources are finite and there is no load balancing going on.


Ouch. Personally, I tend to only use the "major" browsers, and I've only ever used it on my personal web site (which is hosted by my school), so I haven't run into that issue. Maybe Someone™ should send a mail to the site's maintainer about this?
02 Jun, 2008, Guest wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm going to guess they've already thought of this possibility. When I went to check MudBytes using it, I found someone else already had and it served up the images it snapped the first time.
02 Jun, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
What the site is doing isn't really any different from any old denial-of-service attack. I could sit at my browser hitting "refresh" a lot and cause some trouble for a slow server.
02 Jun, 2008, Guest wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
Yes, but the difference here is that the site snaps up to 64 shots one time. It doesn't sit there hitting refresh over and over again, so a regular DoS attack would be far more effective.
02 Jun, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
That's what I meant… this site doesn't really pose a DoS risk.
0.0/18