@joakwest I know that it's better than nothing, but it sounds totally stupid to me, anyway :)
I know it. It sounds crazy to me, too. But it took me hours to import. And also other contacts of mine have had the same problem. I can't really understand the reason why.
I tried those virtual machines. I've been incredulous when have seen what Microsoft provided. Virtual machines with their systems and relative Internet Explorer version. "WOW" I said... before to install them...
Hours to import the virtual machines (because the shorter way has been useless for me), only to have 60/70GiB of virtual machines on my computer and 4 or 5 operating systems to activate (???).
What do they thought when do built those VMs? IMHO, it's totally stupid (thanks Microsoft to not change your mind across the decades) to provide a virtual machine with Windows XP to activate, only for testing in IE6. Do they really believe that I could buy licenses for 4 or 5 OS (most of them older and no more supported) only to test in a browser? Couldn't they to share VMs with a minimal or limited and preconfigured OS?
Always IMHO, Microsoft was able once again to do one step forward and five step backward.
Achievements
250 Karma
22,867 Total ProTip Views
Forked
Raven
Charity
Please correct me if I'm wrong but, doing so in a chrome extension already moved to the version 2 of the manifest (which is required for all the new extensions), without relaxing the CSP policies, shouldn't it generates a security exception due to the
eval()instruction?BTW, this is the same problem in which most template libraries incur when they use
new Function()with default CSP manifest v2 policy.