Announcing RemoteIE: Test the Latest IE on Windows, Mac OS X, iOS and Android
blogs.msdn.com
blogs.msdn.com
1. The Microsoft Remote Desktop Mac app is a UI trainwreck – not just wasted space and odd keyboard shortcuts but things like the Azure login process disabling password managers and the one-time auth code via SMS service never arriving.
2. Azure's federated Live.com logins are broken, cycling between the login page and the console hitting you with a “You have logged out elsewhere”
3. In US East, US West, Southeast Asia and East Asia, connections hang (20+ minutes) at “Please wait for the User Profile Service”
I'm really looking forward to trying this service when Azure is more stable and, hopefully, they add older versions of IE.
Enterprise Mode would be useful since that's getting a bit of traction as an alternative to staying mired in IE8.
Azure VM instances that run in a VPN have major network issues that are caused by the MS infrastructure.
Depending on the latency you won't get the 'feel' for many websites, important nowadays with CSS transitions and WebGL.
MSIE is circling the train in terms of marketshare. The VMs MS provided for testing were a godsend, but forcing devs to give up their work flow would likely result in them just dropping MSIE support.
Or perhaps bandits doing the same thing.
In any case, a large collection of bespectacled Microsoft employees circling a train on horses whilst still wearing 1980s software developer outfits (shirts with pinstripes in them but white collars, high-waisted ironed trousers with a slim gold belt buckle, and big glasses, and a bushy moustache) in all the dirt would be witty, whilst dragging green-screen CRTs and big 5.25" floppy discs in their saddle bags with great difficulty.
I know, I know, this is terribly stereotypical but I think it would make for a great film in the style of Mel Brooks; you can contact me if you want obscure and off-the-wall film settings like this...
Edit: never mind, found answer here http://askubuntu.com/questions/190425/how-to-install-interne...
what a nightmare!!! It is simpler to just detect IE user and ask them to switch to ff or chrome.
agreed. That's why I'm always using CoRD (http://cord.sourceforge.net) for any kind of RDP use on the mac (I don't know whether it would work with this remote IE thing, but for sysadmining here and then, CoRD > Remote Desktop any day)
I don't want yet another email address to use a service, Flickr having required a Yahoo.com email address is a prime example, as is Azure.
On the other hand, Microsoft offers a bunch of freely downloadable virtual machines with every version of Internet Explorer you could care to test in[1]. Why would anybody in the world want to use this particular product for testing over the alternative?
[1]: https://www.modern.ie/en-us/virtualization-tools#downloads
1) You have to download a complete system image of a machine running the specific versions of Windows and IE you're interested in testing against. Each of these images can require downloading up to 4 DVDs worth of data just to get it bootstrapped, which can take forever even on a fast pipe.
2) Want to test against a different version of Windows, or IE, or both? Now you get to download 4 more DVDs, all over again! (Yep, if you started testing, say, IE9 on Windows 7, and now you want to test against IE10, you have to download a whole new virtual machine from scratch.)
3) For reasons known only to Microsoft, they don't distribute the VM images as unified packages; instead, they're a bunch of DVD-size RAR files that have to be assembled into a complete VM image after downloading. One of those RARs get corrupted en route? Back to downloading!
4) RAR files? In 2014? For serious? Yes, RAR files, for serious.
5) Now you've made it through the epic download, assembled your VM image, and are ready to get started. Hey, guess what! Microsoft is so paranoid about the chance that you're an Evil Pirate™ rather than a legitimate developer that they put a special surprise in the VM, just for you: when it reaches the end of the calendar quarter, the VM self-destructs. Yes, you read that right -- after all that, this VM that you marched through Hell to put together becomes useless after three months at most. So at that point, you get to do all the stuff listed above again.
(Yes, I know there are hacks you can make in the registry to extend this time for an extra quarter or two. It's still insulting.)
The whole process is such a pain that people have written tools like ievms (https://github.com/xdissent/ievms) just to automate the endless, tedious downloading-unpacking-installing-self-destructing-downloading-etc. cycle. And vendors like BrowserStack (http://www.browserstack.com/) make good money charging people to do the same thing they could conceivably do with the VMs, just because using the VMs hurts so much people will happily pay to avoid it.
And the kicker: all of this nonsense, of course, is only necessary because you can't install two versions of IE side-by-side. And the only reason you can't install two versions of IE side-by-side is because Microsoft, back when it was Pure Evil, decided to make it that way to force people to upgrade Windows when they wanted to upgrade IE.
Microsoft management are considerably more enlightened these days than they were back then. But this huge, ugly, painful, completely unnecessary wart on the Windows development experience that they forced upon the world back then still persists, either because someone in Redmond thinks it's a good idea, or just out of sheer laziness.
Not true.
Otherwise, though, I completely agree that it's harder than it needs to be. The big problem you left out are the Windows updates – both because that new VM is going to be useless at first until it installs hundreds of updates (saving files is a 100% CPU for hours NP-hard problem in Microsoft-land) and because unless you specifically disable it Windows Update will automatically upgrade you to the latest version of IE.
> the only reason you can't install two versions of IE side-by-side is because Microsoft, back when it was Pure Evil, decided to make it that way to force people to upgrade Windows when they wanted to upgrade IE
The actual goal was to win the browser wars by ensuring that every Windows user had a copy of Internet Explorer, knowing that many people would never pay for a copy of Netscape if they already had a browser. Creating dependencies around the OS was an attempt to avoid anti-bundling laws and, like many of the other decisions they made in the 90s, a bad idea the entire industry has spent billions coping with. I'm sure there's plenty of regret now as they have to deal with all of the enterprise customers who refuse to upgrade because they don't know what upgrading the system browser will break.
I rarely open IE 10 for testing, anyway. I assume if my website does work on latest Chrome, Firefox, Safari it will work also on recent Internet Explorers ( >= 10 ). If it doesn't work as expected, it's MS bug of a browser that users can actually upgrade, so it's not such a big deal.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_versions#Wind...
Putting it into a ZIP allows native support on pretty much every platform.
What were the technical/human constraints that lead to that solution? Was the team agonising over conflicting goals? Or was it as simple as "Alice already knew it"/"Our tool chain already supported it"?
Or because they have bigger fish to fry. It's not like they have `define AllowMultipleIEinstalls 0 they can just flip.
Having multiple versions of any application installed side-by-side has always been a hit-or-miss feature, precisely because few people care. Hell, most of the time I want to overwrite the old version. Do you remember the days when Java was installed side-by-side, and you wound up with twelve different versions of Java? You could never be certain which one was active, and of course at least 9 of them were completely insecure by that point...
Are they really 15 GB per image?
Just make sure to save the updated machine image afterward. :-)
The alternatives discussed here are for when you don't have and don't want to pay for a Windows license, and are unwilling to break the law and pirate it as part of your job.
My (completely legal) copy of Windows decides that it's not legit every time I upgrade VirtualBox, and sometimes at random times in between. Each time I have to dig out the disk and go through the authentication BS.
If I actually used it for anything other than occasional browser testing it might be worthwhile to jump through those hoops, but I don't. Not to mention that (since I only need it once in a great while) each time I use it I have to go through downloading a zillion megabytes of software updates and reboot multiple times.
Also, I don't have to keep it around on my (always full) main drive or run it off a slow external drive.
The two cents an hour cost for the AMI is well worth avoiding the hassle, for me. Your use case may well be different.
This highlights why I prefer to just have these as local virtual machines. When I'm working on a project and I need to do an IE pass, I don't want to rely on this server being available. Even things like BrowserStack, which are definitely nice, have been super laggy right when I happen to need them. Not to mention that you can't really gauge performance over a connection like this.
I do like the Modern IE iso's they are providing now though. Paired with Parallels, it's one click to download and initialize a new Windows/IE combo, and it lasts for (30?) days
2. That doesn't help at all if you need to test against Mac or iOS clients and want the underlying layers to match. I've found a ton of Unicode-support related issues rendering text properly which worked on Windows 7 or maybe only 8 but not OS X (or earlier versions of windows, etc.). Similar problems exist for HTML5 media playback.
2) signed in with my work Microsoft account.
3) No Internet Explorer listed under remote apps.
4) Signed out and tried to sign in with my personal Microsoft account.
5) Mistyped the absurdly difficult Captcha 5 times and decided to stop wasting time trying to play with this.
EDIT: Just now received an email inviting me to try remoteIE with my work MS account. I just need to log back in and refresh to see invitations.
EDIT2: Tried logging back in and hitting refresh and it's still not there. I forgot to mention that it prompts me with a message that remoteapp is not available and that I may sign up for a free trial. If you decline the free trial you are immediately logged out! Still no IE.
FWIW I tried Paint and the experience is pretty awesome.
I wish Microsoft would finally untie their Browser from the OS and provide standalone packages.
But that will never happen. The sad fact is that you have to cater to your audience, and almost all people will just click back and look for another site if your site doesn't render perfectly in their browser of choice (or in the case of IE, the only browser they've ever known, even though they didn't choose it). So much time and effort wasted due to MS's anti-competive practices and incompetence.
I guess there's no chance MS will release the ISO of said build though, especially because this build includes the usual private-build watermarks first introduced in Windows 8.
RemoteIE uses 9860.winmain (as in, it's 9860 from the mainline branch, rather than 9860 from the fbl_release branch). And naturally, it's server -- 9860 server isn't public at all.
be blocked occasionally when site is down or your connection is bad.
not be able to save a predefined vm and reboot it every 30 days like before.
they will certainly not take into account your important project that is due tomorrow when planning for site upgrades as you would if it were local.
and to top my day: now i will have to wait legal to allow me to test secret project of the day on a3rd party service.
... please Microsoft, don't pull an apple and take those vms down just yet.
To be honest do I only use and develop in Firefox and these days it generally works on all other browsers as well.