You should seriously consider changing those blank.gif's in threaded mode to about two or three spaces... Seriously man.. It makes pages with a LOT of replies load atleast two or three times faster........ I never had any problems with it on my old forum.. everything renders fine with spaces in all the browsers I tried......... Go to the PHP forum in threaded mode and look around for a while.. You will understand what I mean <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />
There is probably hundreds of gifs being rendered on that page.. it's insane..
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
Only because IE is basically part of the damn gui in 98 if you have active desktop on.. it's always in memory so it loads right up.. And think of all of those cool undocumented functions it probably uses to help speed it up when netscape is stuck using microsofts purposly crapy functions lol...
I like the look and feel of netscape a lot better.. the bookmarks are better etc..
Plus since I use linux or FreeBSD about 60% of my time.. It's kinda hard to use IE.....
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
Conspiracy theory eh? Something like, if app = Netscape, begin random illegal operation procedure. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />
>> I like the look and feel of netscape a lot better.. the bookmarks are better etc..
Shame about what it does to good HTML code then. You can't blame MS for that!
Yes, very true... why couldn't the gif's be replaced with two or three non-breaking spaces?
Muhammad Chishti Creative dIRECTOR <font color=white><A HREF="http://www.imcuniverse.com" target="_new">http://www.imcuniverse.com</A></font color=white>
Yeah.. Netscape has a problem some times, but the REAL problem is that IE -fixes- broken HTML!!!!!! Don't believe me? go make a table, leave out a few of the tags.. leave a few of the tags open etc.. IE will render it fine.. Netscape won't...... That is good in a way, but bad when you think of all the lazy, not so good HTML programmers there are on the web.. it just makes them worse cause they never learn to write good code =) If you test your code in netscape and it works.. you KNOW it has to be good =)
Most people that say Netscape doesn't render good code only say that because they don't write good code.... IE will render their bad code, but Netscape won't...
Now if you get really tricky with tables it can be frustrating that IE and Netscape both handle them different <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="images/icons/frown.gif" /> (that is very very annoying)
Also, it's a proven fact that Microsoft has undocumented functions and stuff inside of their foundation classes(?) or MCVC++....... They like to take advantage of them, but not let anybody else I guess......
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
Have to disagree with you there. The real kick in the butt to what you're saying is that good code displays badly in Netscape and many people experience this. [sad]
Why is that when I tell my frameset to be so many pixels wide, it decides on a different, somewhat shorter, width. Same goes for the height. Don't believe me? Go to Netscape's own pages, see how wide they've defined their own page, take a screenshot from their own browser and tell me if the dimensions are the same as what it was told to display as. This was a real pain in the bum for me because I spent ages trying to work out why I put an image in a frame and it cuts the right hand end of the image off in Netscape but not in IE. Then I thought, well I know some of Netscape's pages use frames, I'll go over there and check out what they've done to deal with this. Well it doesn't work with their browser on their own site either. [img] /w3timages/icons/shocked.gif [/img] But using IE on the Netscape site and it fits perfectly. You think Netscape developers are just writing bad html code?
Then I set my textarea on w3t to 56 cols. How many characters wide can you type in with IE? 56. How many with Netscape? about 80. It pushes form boxes wide and causes horizontal scrolling on smaller screens. You have to make your boxes smaller than you want them just so Netscape users will see it properly. [img] /w3timages/icons/shocked.gif [/img]
Can I go on, how long have you got? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />
Sorry, don't buy the argument that IE is only for lazy code writers. IE overtook Netscape after version 3. Most people in "the biz" would agree with that. Netscape stuffs up good code, straight out of any web design/html book. And as you can probably tell, it makes it annoying to have to knock things about to suit an inferior browser that 25% still use. Even Eileen dislikes it. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />
In fact, Eileen <font color=red>HATES</font color=red> it! I wish they'd kill it and put us all out of our misery. I was a Netscape junkie back in the old days - couldn't *wait* for each bug-riddled upgraded beta; haunted the newsgoups for the first whiff of a new one. When Mosaic had had its day, it gave up gracefully and went away - it wasn't kept on life-support by a bunch of knee-jerk-anti-MS fanatics who couldn't make the next step forward because it was put out by the dreaded Microsoft and therefore just HAD to be evil... <img src="http://amdragon.com/images/icons/dragon.gif" alt=" - " />
And show me the pop-up tool-tip labels on today's relic of Netscape! That's really fine honoring of good html code?
I didn't disagree with you when you said Netscape was picky and doesn't do what you tell it.. I completely agree!
All I am saying is that IE fixes bad code..... People will write code, it's broken and sloppy.. it works fine on IE.. It doesn't work on Netscape.. They go off ranting and raving.. I go and say "Dude, you forgot to close like 10 tags and you for got a TD tag in this table.. etc.." Their first instinct is to blame Netscape..
Now as far is Netscape being picky.. That is completely true... IE is just as picky, just not as bad.. Netscape is picky about things you use more often..
When it comes to frames.. I think Netscape's is about 10px off from IE's.. or so.. atleast when I use to write framed sites a lot..
One thing you are wrong about is that just because Netscape gets things wrong, doesn't mean IE isn't for lazy coders lol.. If you don't test your site in Netscape I bet you a billion dollars I could go in and find a [censored] load of errors and missing tags that you would never even know about if you only use IE.... not only will it break netscape but it will break just about any other browser also.. except IE of course..
Both IE and NS have their flaws (as far as layouts go, NS has a [censored] load of them.. everything has to be PERFECT and then it doesn't work in IE)...... but IE is still bad....... and NS6 is a [censored] load better than either of them IMO... (or it's getting there anyway)
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by PeelBoy on 10/19/00 08:29 PM.</EM></FONT>
Start using the Mozilla nightly builds.. I use them.. They work great..
My MAIN problem with IE other than being a Microsoft product is that it only runs on friggen Windows (or a mac).... I can use Mozilla on ANY computer I want and it works just as good..... so fug IE.... I would rather die than use it... I'll use Opera or Mozilla any day over it.
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
One thing I have learned about writing HTML.. is that if you write it sooooooo specific like that.. the site probably ends up sucking anyway.. Don't you ever get sick of sites that line up 10 images perfectly to make a neat picture? uhh yeah like the first time you see it? and how about the little curves at the ends of tables? or pictures in frames? they serve no real purpose anyway other than they look cool, but it's not like it brings 100,000 visitors to your site every day..... most of the popular sites are pretty much written using tables (which work FINE in both IE and NS. Period) and very few GFX.. they load fast, look nice and clean, have more room for content, and work in any friggen browser..... When I stopped trying to put too much worthless effort in my sites and focus more on making them clean, easy to navigate and not browser specific.. is the day I stopped noticing all of the differences between how IE handles a tag and NS.. (ok well I still notice, but neither are broken, they just treat things different.. I think frames is one of the bigger problems in NS, and who cares? I hate them anyway)
No matter - WHAT - I have always managed to get sites looking right in both browsers.. it takes some tricks and what not, but you can do it..
And in the end? If my site works in Netscape (as in clean code, not layout wise) it works in just about any damn browser.. Netscape does not like to fix those damn broken table tags for ya like IE does...
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
Haha. Well put. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> I guess we agree more than I thought. But at the end of the day IE5 is a superior browser to Netscape's latest public release and if everyone used the superior browser (whatever that may be at any point in time) it would make our job much easier. And all I ask for is for the damn thing to properly display correct code.
well I re-read what I said at first and it sounded like I was calling you a bad coder or something which I wasn't.. I just mean people in general.. I have friends who write (pretty crapy) web pages, and they always talk about how much Netscape sucks.... Not because they are sooooooooooo good at HTML that they notice Netscape's frame tag is off by 10px..... but because their code is so friggen broken that only IE will display it right..
Anyway.. I use NS almost 100% of the time.. I never visit sites that don't render right.. I think that any site that gets so picky about stuff like that.. I usually won't want to look at any way (like I said.. you run into these problems by trying to do cool tricks with HTM which end up being annoying anyway.....)
BTW: Have you tried the latest Mozilla yet? Maybe you should.. Just because it isn't out of beta yet doesn't mean it isn't good.. Plus it works in Linux, IE doesn't. =)
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
You just said Netscape PR3 is nice.... Mozilla IS Netscape PR3 did you not know that? You must be thinking of Mosaic.
The nightly builds for Mozilla work great... If you haven't used them since Milestone 4, then you are missing out, it's a lot more stable since then. and renders hella good.
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
It's the same thing, just older, and under a different license..
The code is all the same.. Netscape only packages it's version every once in a while though.. Mozilla nightly builds are updated multiple times a day... in the end it's all the same code, just packaged different... PR3 is already getting to be out dated.. the nightly builds are almost to M19, PR3 is early version of M18
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
Right but we aren't fighting over which browser has more market share <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> we are fighting over which browser renders better...... not fighting about what browser we should make our pages work for, and forget all other browsers <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> If there is one thing I hate more than anything else.. it's a browser specific page.. there is always a stupid reason behind making a webpage browser specific.. like some ****ty JavaScript or VBScript code, or some crappy CSS that does nothing but make an image fly across the screen.. big deal.. no reason to block other users heh..
Anyway to get back on subject, the fight is over what browser renders better.. I think Mozilla renders as good, or better than IE5.5.. If it doesn't now.. It will in a few months.. And since it will constantly be updated on, it will always keep up, or be ahead of the game..
Besides.. Just because everybody else doesn't use Mozilla yet doesn't mean -you- can't.. it's not like all the webpages instantly break when you hop in a new browser..
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
What I plan to do is make a slight change. Instead of display several blank gifs, display one blank gif with the width appropriately set for the proper indentation. I do this in another program I have made and it works much better.
I've tried the non breaking space thing and I could never get it to align properly. This was some time ago, so maybe it was due to a crappy browser:).
I'm a loyal anti-microsoft freak I guess you can see =)
I agree that IE5.5 is a better browser than Netscape 4.7, but you have to remember.. 4.7 is very old now.. with almost no major changes.. it's still basically 4.0 with a lot of bug fixes.. to be fair you need to compare IE4.2 and NS4.7.... IE is still better, but it's not sooooo much better like IE5.5 is.. IE use to be just as broken as NS is...........
You need to compare Mozilla with IE5.5 sine that is netscapes next version of their browser (they skip 5.0 and go strait to 6)...... Mozilla is just as good, or better than IE5.5... depending on if you use the features that are done in Mozilla or not <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
I never did have many problems using the spaces though.. if you use just one space I could see it not working.. I used 2 or 3(can't remember which) and never got any complaints.. (I had a very active forum too.. 6,000 users and about 60 online at all times).. they all loved it when I switched to spaces (they like to post lots and lots of replies and I had threaded set to default)..
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
>> I'm a loyal anti-microsoft freak I guess you can see =)
I think we just got to the bottom of what's clouding your better judgement. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />
Whatever works best, works for me, and that ain't NN4. Thanks for a vigourous discussion. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />
popup tool tips? you mean when you put your mouse over an icon it shows a description? I dunno.. never paid attention.. I'll tell you today when I get to work.
I'm almost 100% sure it -supports- pop up tool tips, but probably just doesn't have them built into the existing theme (chrome)
They use XUL to write the user interface (that way anybody can make their own theme or what not).. I'm sure you can do tool tips with it.. It's probably just the least of their concerns right now.. They are busy getting other things finished before they spend time on the user interface.
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
no, lol.. how can that be clouding my judgement when I already agreed with you on your major points? It's me who is having a hard time getting you to agree on -my- major points lol..
But the thing is, you are comparint IE 5.5 to NS4...... NS 4 is way old now.. It's just Netscape 4.. That has been around for years already.. There have been no major changes to it.. Compare NS4.7 to IE4.2 and Mozilla to IE5.5.. that is a fair comparison...... Mozilla renders almost just as good as IE5.5 by now and it's still early beta.
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
I'm not saying my code is browser specific but there are occationally those JavaScripts that don't work right in NS and do in IE. JavaScript support is much more advanced in IE and that's something proven. My main reason for NS sucking is that it likes to "hang" sometimes or appear to when it renders complex tables. IE just handles it smoothly. I just think IE is overall faster.
I don't really see the problem in IE correcting code with errors in it. And I don't see why anyone should. Why should thousands of websurfers suffer because the site designer quickly changed something on his way out the door for a 1 week long trip.
Agree with you 100% and have experienced much of that. I love the days when you can't access some pages on the Netscape site through their browser but can through IE. It's kinda funny actually. (Happens like weekly to me)
NS6 sucks totally still. Where's this JavaScript 1.5 support that it's suppose to have? Why is IE's 1.3 JavaScript support better then NS6's? How come virtually every script that works in NS3 & NS4 and IE doesn't work in NS6? Where is all this new CSS support that NS6 is suppose to have that IE doesn't? I still see IE, NS3 and NS4 more feature rich then NS6. Sure it's able to download and render a page properly, MS could do that too with IE if they wanted to. But they'd rather have IE render it CORRECT then quickly displaying it like NS6 and having it rendered incorrect.
I run the latest build of Mozilla. M18 and last night's build and I still get all the problems I described in the previous posts. And don't even say I'm not writing my HTML code good because the example I took was from a HTML and JS site and then also from Netscape's OWN site. Mozilla's site shouldn't even be used because a two year old baby could design that site in Notepad in about 20 seconds. Did anyone ever disect one of the sites that Netscape gave to "show" NS6's features before NS6 PR1? There was a little JavaScript at the top to detect which browser was used and if it was anything other then NS6 then it changed some variables around and magically it didn't render in the other browsers. Well I saved the source and all the gifs and I tried it on my own web server but deleted the JS at the top. It rendered fine in IE5 and then it started to render fine in NS4 but then got a javascript error and stopped. I wish I still had it to show everyone.
