Newer Chrome Repugnant
(I assume your question is facetious since the first hit when Googling “google ncr” gives the answer.)
Domain Management. What you do if your company uses Gmail for eMail.
And not a killer: yes I can do User Agent spoofing, or move to a different computer, or install another browser. I’m just p-d off that Google decides to tell me what browser to use. And why? So that they can design a huge special page for every different version of every different browser.
Faa. Just use HTML.
PS: Who writes “Bloody”? Traditional Aus lit never spelled it out.
To Americans, “Bloody” is just a quirky Britishism, no more offensive than “Darn” or “Heck”.
Melbourne, stop using IE 8. it’s old, busted, and a piece of junk.
Bzzzzzzzzt.
IE9 is not a google-permitted browser.
And FWIW, IE8 is the last version of IE supported on Server 2003, which is still a current server version. Not that I use a browser on a server (even for looking up support issues, because I meticulously copy the information to another window to do that) but it’s not busted, was not a piece of junk, and at 5 years, is “old” only if you are a child.
Meh, you made it sound like Google was making you use Chrome. They just want you to use a recent enough browser to have the features needed for the page in question.
It takes five minutes and zero dollars to update your browser. “Imperialism” seems like a bit of a stretch, even allowing for hyperbole.
Is this the problem mentioned in the OP?
The problem mentioned in the OP is that Google redirects me to the url “about:blank” when I follow the link to “manage”.
I say “redirects” instead of “directs” because it redirects me by way of a dialog which invites me to download Chrome. If I choose not to download Chrome, it dumps me at “about:blank”
“about:blank” is a standard local private url, which your browser displays as a blank page. “about:” is a standard thing like http: or ftp: or https:
I’d post a link, but your browser probably wouldn’t follow a link posted like that: just type it in.
Yeah, it is. IE9 is the first one you can argue isn’t busted, as IE8 is junk because it was actually HTML5 compliant, and five years is a rather long time in terms of web development.
Google decided a while back that, rather than try to support old versions of IE (with all the hacks that requires), they would just release a plugin that would use the Chrome renderer under IE.
Not that Google is required to support a browser just because Microsoft still has to support it.
OK, you pay Google to compensate them for using their salaries/wages/money-in-general and hired expertise to support a now-completely-heterodox browser. Or do you not understand why that would be expensive and difficult, and therefore not palatable to Google? Are you so childish to imagine that maintaining what would essentially be two separate codebases would not be difficult and expensive? How much do you know about web development?
It’s a constant source of amazement to me that people can consider others churlish for not doing things they haven’t the faintest conception of how to do for themselves. This is, perhaps, excusable in eight-year-olds, but it grates when the party making the demands is old enough to understand the concept of value for money.
But perhaps you aren’t, in which case I tender my sincerest apologies.