My site is hosted on Azure. For one of my features, I need to have access to DLL's based on either IE8 or IE9 (for the IEGetProtectedModeCookie function in ieframe.dll). This method was introduced with IE8.
Unfortunately, Azure is currently based on an image that uses IE7, so when I try to call this method I get a "DLL entry point not found" exception.
I've tried everything I can think of to get the x64 version of this DLL on to my Azure instance, but haven't had any luck. So for the time being, for one of my scenarios I'm not going to support browsers based on IE8. Instead, I'll just wait patiently until Azure is based on a browser snapshot or image that uses either IE8 or IE9.
How long do you think I'll have to wait?
Step-by-step guide to automatically installing IE9 on Azure instances.
We do this in our Worker Roles for a similar reason. Works fine.
http://sajojacob.com/blog/2011/03/startup-tasks-elevated-privileges-vm-role/
To answer the question, presumably Windows Azure VM images will have IE8 (or IE9) when a Windows server OS ships with that version.
Here are a list of Azure OS's and related SDKs The dates there should give you an idea.
As an alternative you could create your own VHD and upload it to Azure. But then you will be required to maintain the OS patches yourself.
Related
I just upgraded from a Windows 2003 Server (IIS 6) to a Windows 2012 R2 (IIS 8.5). I don't think it matters, but I also upgraded from ColdFusion 9 to ColdFusion 11. All of a sudden images would show as missing. For example, in the search results, the image with the first result will be broken. When I refresh the page, it is there.
I just can't figure it out and our Marketing VP is getting a little antsy... understandably so.
I view the source and the image path is correct. I even copy and paste it into the browser and the image shows.
Has anyone else experienced this? I appreciate any advice you may offer.
Take a look at your browser's Dev Tools (this is from Chrome). There should be a Network panel that will show all the images being loaded on your site. If there are any real missing images, you'll see a status of 404 (Not Found), otherwise you should see 200 (OK) or 304 (Not Modified). You'll also see a time column that can tell you if any images are just taking some time to load.
If you're directly showing the image on the page simply by sourcing the image file itself, then your latency shouldn't have anything to do with ColdFusion.
<img src="/path/to/some.jpg">
But if you're loading the images using cfcontent, then you need to figure out what's going on in relation to ColdFusion.
<img src="/path/to/some.cfm?fileID=1234">
Our upgrade from CF 9 to CF 2016 with an upgrade to Windows server on the 2016 boxes is in our Beta environment at the moment and we haven't seen any issues related to loading files (jpg, gif, doc(x), xls(x)) via cfcontent.
I finally figured this out. On our 32-bit 2003 servers, we had to use the Ionic Rewriting tool. Great tool, truly. I installed that on our new 64-bit 2012 server (yes, I used the new 64 bit version). I really don't know why, but when I installed thet Microsoft IIS rewrite module, wrote the filters and uninstalled the Ionic ISAPI filter... voila! The problem went away. I guess the Ionic rewrite tool doesn't play as well with IIS 8.5 as I'd hoped.
I have a ActiveX control hosting a flash-player which is in turn running a flash file trying to access data from a web-address.
In an old Windows Application version of my application everything works fine and the flash file is able to access the web-content.
However, in a newer Console Appliction version of the application it can no longer access the web-content.
Any ideas what might be causing this? Is there some kind of difference between a Windows Application and a Console application in terms of security/permissions that might affect an ActiveX hosted flash-player?
I'm using Windows 7.
First of all - how did you manage to get an ActiveX into a console application? :) I think ax needs window handles and all such things...
Anyways, there are different kinds of sandboxes from the Flash player perspective, what you are seeing is the "local not trusted" kind. In order to "trust" the SWF that issues the request you would need to use this page to confirm that the location where SWF comes from can communicate to the internet.
Doing so may be a hindrance for the user, but if this is the case, you could write the trust files on your own. Example
I have noticed that some browsers via a build in development feature allow you to choose different user agents.
Does this mean that they change their rendering engine?
Say for example, if I set Safari's user agent to internet explorer - will that then change the rending engine from webkit to trident?
At the moment on my mac I have Safari, Chrome, Firefox and iCab installed. I would imagine they would represent the different engine's better than the user agent function built in.
However you are only limited to installing 1 version of each unless you go the virtual machine or dual boot way.
So what is your advice? Run multiple virtual machine and of course the extra licenses to do it legal will need to be purchased. or stick with the user agent function built in and that gives a good enough interperatation of the differences??
Cheers Jeff
Say for example, if I set Safari's user agent to internet explorer - will that then change the rending engine from webkit to trident?
No. A user agent is just a string that the browser sends to identify itself. I could set my user agent to cheeseburger if I wanted. It won't use a cheeseburger to try and render the page.
Officially, the only correct way to run Internet Explorer is on Windows - which would require a Windows installation - a VM is a perfect valid and common solution. On a Mac you also have the option of Bootcamp.
There are other services, like http://browsershots.org/, that allow you to specify a URL and they will send you a screenshot of what the URL likes like in a particular browser. I typically don't like these solutions because they are slow, you don't have any debugging tools, etc.
the user agent setting in safari (and other browsers) only spoofs the user agent, it doesn't change the rendering engine. you can use that spoofing, to get for example the iPhone version of a webpage in your desktop safari. to check your page in different browsers, you could use some web service like http://browsershots.org/ (thats just the first google result) or setup an array of virtual machines. we do the latter, which ineed costs you 2-3 windows licenses, but you can pack a lot of browsers into one virtual machine, just distribute the different versions among different machines
We are going to develop a client-server application where all the office documents will be stored on the remote server.
The problem is that users need to edit these docs very often.
The standard solution is:
download
edit locally
upload
But it is very inconvenient and would cause high traffic, cause docs are very large.
Is there any solution to edit documents right on server?
E.g. some remote OpenOffice installation which we can connect somehow?
Thanks in advance!
Unless you can give your users RDP sessions on Windows or VNC (or X windows?) sessions on Linux you're going to be stuck with downloading the document to edit locally (in one form or another) then upload again.
There may be some HTTP/browser based solution but because it's HTTP you're going be to pulling all of the document back to the browser to edit then posting back to the server, it pretty much defeats the purpose.
As pointed out by Kev, one solution would be some sort of remote access software to access a copy of OpenOffice.org running on the server. There is for example a VNC viewer that will run as a Java applet in a browser (http://www.realvnc.com/support/javavncviewer.html ), that might do the trick.
Another option would be a server-based office package, a la Google docs. There are some available, but none with the full feature set of OpenOffice.org, so this is probably only an option if you can restrict to that feature set. If you can, it could work quite well.
I'm having a performance problem on my company's web site using a specific version of IE 8 to load a page using https. Here's what I know.
Server:
Virtual machine running on VMWare ESX
Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition SP 2
Tomcat 6.0.16
Client:
Windows XP and Window 7
Internet Explorer 8.0.7600.16385IC
Page loads/refreshes in under 1 second using HTTP.
Page loads/refreshes in 15-16 seconds in HTTPS using this version of IE.
Problem reproduced on multiple client machines with same IE version.
Problem reproduced on multiple client machines with different Windows versions (XP and 7).
No performance problem using Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari from same machine.
No performance problem using other versions of IE 8 on other machines.
Slow load causes virtually no CPU, memory, or I/O spike on server or client machine.
No performance problem on other sites using HTTPS on same client machine.
The pages in question use JavaScript and innerHTML to replace the contents of div elements to create a collapsible menu, and an iframe to display some content. A couple of the div elements contain images. If I remove the iframe and the JavaScript, the performance issues go away. However, rewriting the entire site to make these changes would be very time consuming. We're in the process of replacing the whole site, but it may be 2-3 months before we do so and we really cannot live with this slowdown that long. I've already looked at several IE tuning options, such as disabling add ons, running IE-rereg, and resetting IE, with no luck.
Does anyone have any suggestions?
The version you mention is the version that shows in Windows 7, is it not (i.e., in Windows XP, it should show like 8.0.6001.18904)? Have you applied all recent patches? More particularly, have you applied the KB980182 security patch?
That particular patch was an "out of band" patch, which means it has been brought to the public in haste and outside of the normal upgrade cycle. It came out April 22, 2010, or about. If you have installed the patch (either automatically, or by hand), try uninstalling or rollback using the Backup and Restore Center and select the restore point that mentions that fix.
While KB980182 caused quite some trouble and weird behaviors, you may try the same approach with other patches if rolling back to before KB980182 didn't help: rollback using Backup and Restore Center to an earlier moment in time, and check if the problem goes away.
This type of testing is a nuisance, I know, but I'm afraid there's little else you can do.