Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MSNBC.com gets more anti-mac

Freg3000

Freg3000

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Sep 22, 2002
1,914
0
New York
From MacMinute.com:

MSNBC video now only for Windows IE
December 21 - 22:56 EST The newly redesigned MSNBC.com now has new anti-Mac requirements to view video on the popular news Web site. "To use MSNBC Video, your computer must have Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.5 or later on a Windows operating system," the site now says. "The Netscape internet browser is not sufficiently compatible with Windows Media Player 9 to play MSNBC Video content and no plug-in software is available. MSNBC video is unable to support the Macintosh or other operation systems."
 

Attachments

  • flash_default.gif
    flash_default.gif
    2.4 KB · Views: 883
Yeah, no joke. I saw this, too.

That's the last time I ever go to this site.

But the funny thing is, it's all a big lie. The problem is in their code. they can't find a way to write thir code so that the video window pops up on a Mac. It givves you an error that says "This video is being blocked by pop-up blocking software". The problem is not in our implementation of WMP. It's in their terrible web development.

I know this because I've emailed the webmaster and gotten responses from them.
 
If webmasters would write their sites according to the W3C's specifications, there wouldn't BE any browser incompatibilities (let's not get into CSS2).

Furthermore, I don't see the benefit of using Windows Media over QuickTime. Windows Media = closed, proprietary, and platform-specific (a lot of the time). QuickTime = open, standards-based, and platform-independent.
 
This is all I get on my Linux system. Clicking on their link does nothing.

Code: 
 The MSN Video player may be blocked by pop-up blocking software. Click here if it was blocked.
 
Try using the debug menu in safari to fool it into thinking that you are running windows.
 
"In other news today, the Redmond software giant Microsoft acquired patents and copyrights on air. Sources close the company cite 'incompatibility' issues as the driving force in Microsoft's decision to make air propietary. Sources also detail a plan to introduce Air 1.1 in the new update of Windows XP. The former patent and copyright holder of air, God, was unavailable for comment. However, Air 1.1 will likely utilize a proprietary file format, *.air, for all future downloads."

It's just a matter of time...
 
Just went to MSNBC.com and tried to play a video of Saddam ( on their front page ) and was told the following...

"You do not have one of the following operating systems required for MSN Video:

Microsoft Windows® 98 Second Edition, Windows 2000, or Windows XP.

To be directed to Microsoft's online store, click here."

MSNBC is such a biased news source!!! I HATE it when someone tries to force me to use Windows!!!!
 
Originally posted by 7on
air... haha, who needs it anyway?

I use iOxygen
Click to expand...

in that case you going to turn a nice shade of blue.

I know your joking but as a bit of trivia - pure oxygen is poisonous.

You cant use O2 you need O. Your body gets it off carbon atoms (a few other, but mainly carbon) in the air and then uses them for combustion inside your lungs creating CO2 - that what we breathe out.

The combustion is used for digestion mainly but also for exterion and generation of extra energy (such as running, extra energy = more combustion = heavier breathing)


Oh, and MS does have a patent on air - well they better with the amount their CEO needs after running on stage ………… :D :D :D
 
Originally posted by benixau
in that case you going to turn a nice shade of blue.

I know your joking but as a bit of trivia - pure oxygen is poisonous.

You cant use O2 you need O. Your body gets it off carbon atoms (a few other, but mainly carbon) in the air and then uses them for combustion inside your lungs creating CO2 - that what we breathe out.

The combustion is used for digestion mainly but also for exterion and generation of extra energy (such as running, extra energy = more combustion = heavier breathing)


Oh, and MS does have a patent on air - well they better with the amount their CEO needs after running on stage ………… :D :D :D
Click to expand...

Uh... you need to check your physics and biology. While high partial pressures of oxygen are toxic - you can still breath it.

You don't get oxygen "off carbon atoms" you get it from O2 in the air. There is no combustion in the lungs - O2 is carried in the bloodstream by hemoglobin in red bloodcells. O2 is combined with blood sugar in cells in the body in their mitochondria where it used to add an extra phosphate bond to ADP making it ATP - the primary energy transport mechanism within cells.
 
Originally posted by benixau
I know your joking but as a bit of trivia - pure oxygen is poisonous.

You cant use O2 you need O. Your body gets it off carbon atoms (a few other, but mainly carbon) in the air and then uses them for combustion inside your lungs creating CO2 - that what we breathe out.
Click to expand...

I'm really curious about where you got this idea.

O2 is toxic at high partial pressures, but it is essential for all aerobic life (which includes us all the animals, and all the plants). Atomic oxygen (O) isn't generally available as it will spontaneously form molecular oxygen (O2) or ozone (O3) under ordinary conditions.

And, while it is true that we get energy from reduced carbon sources (such as fats, sugars and carbohydrates), the process is certainly not 'combustion' and it doesn't happen in your lungs...it happens in the cytoplasm and mitochondria of every cell in your body (google for 'glycolysis' and 'oxidative phosphorylation' if you'd like to learn about the process.

I'm sure you have a sophisticated understanding of many complex phenomena, but clearly metabolism isn't one of them, so perhaps you might want to read about it a little before you post things like this in public forums.

Cheers.
 
I really doubt this is a malicious attempt to conceal the news from Mac users. It seems a much more logical explanation that the coder realized it would take more work to code everything for mac browsers as well and figured it wasn't worth the effort. Either way, msnbc.com sucks, they exaggerate everything for sensationalistic purposes and distort the news to make it more exciting.
 
I'm running Mac OS 9 and I can't even view msnbc.com anymore. I use Mozilla and Netscape [the only browsers worth using in Mac OS 9, as far as I know] and the site doesn't load.
 
msnbc is, without a doubt, the WORST coded site i've ever visited. half of the pages render 3-feet down the page, numerous features don't load, etc...

piss poor project management and standards-based development. then again, MS has never been known for their QUALITY.
 
Originally posted by beefcake
I really doubt this is a malicious attempt to conceal the news from Mac users. It seems a much more logical explanation that the coder realized it would take more work to code everything for mac browsers as well and figured it wasn't worth the effort. Either way, msnbc.com sucks, they exaggerate everything for sensationalistic purposes and distort the news to make it more exciting.
Click to expand...

Actually, Safari is more standards compliant than IE. The coders wouldn't have to work harder if they just followed standards. But if they make it IE centric, then there will be some non-standardized code.

But most of the stuff unsupported by other browsers is simple stuff like slide show - I would have to assume malicious intent here - the slide shows would be very easy to make compliant with all browsers.
 
Originally posted by bitfactory
msnbc is, without a doubt, the WORST coded site i've ever visited. half of the pages render 3-feet down the page, numerous features don't load, etc...

piss poor project management and standards-based development. then again, MS has never been known for their QUALITY.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it the worst coded site ever as long as you are using Internet Exploder it looks fine and acts fine. It does on my system at any rate but looks somewhat crappy on Mozilla FireBird and gets the same error mentioned above. Nope the coder/s were just being lazy. Bet cash it was designed in FrontPage and used all the gosh golly ge wiz features that only IE supports.
Thanks guys.....NOT. :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by chazmox
Actually, Safari is more standards compliant than IE.
Click to expand...


My boxers are more WWWC standard compliant then anything MS puts out. It pisses me off to no end that the gullible morons in this world automatically accept piss poor implementation of standards all in the name of getting it for “free”. Microsoft should be held directly accountable for this crap.
 
There is a way to get a DEBUG menu in Safari that allows you to make it look as if Safari is actually Win Explorer. The tip was in the new macworld but I can't post it right now because i'm at school....if anyone knows it throw it up.
 
Its not just Mac

I run Mozilla Firebird on my PCs and often MSNBC pages dont resolve at all-- the home page works fine but the subsequent pages are blanks. MSNBC is probably the least standards-compliant site on the net.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back