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.
She means over links and icons on the web site. And it doesn't have support for it because that stuff isn't dictated to NS6 by XUL. I even tried using OverLib JavaScript to make my own customized tooltips (sometimes I need longer tooltips, like in my help files and I use them to define words) and that doesn't work in NS6 when it does in IE and NS4.
NS6 the superior browser....when you don't include NS4 and IE in the equation.
lol.. that's a first for me.. I've never heard anybody say JavaScript is more advanced in IE..
How can it be more advanced in IE? Netscape invented the language.. The only reason I can think that IE might be ahead, is because their browser is also a complete generation ahead. Netscapes latest version (to compete with IE 5.5) is Mozilla, and that isn't out yet (it takes time to re-write a browser from scratch with limited resources) but I bet Mozilla's JavaScript support is up there with IE 5.5's.
Compare JavaScript in IE 4.2 to NS 4.7. That is fair.. I seriously doubt IE 4.2 has better JavaScript support than NS 4.7.
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
Again you're comparing NS4.7 with IE4.2 which isn't fair. NS4.7 came out when IE5 was out. If you compare JS support between NS4.0 and NS4.7 you'll see a huge difference. First off the version of the language implemented. NS4.0 only did a scaled down version of 1.2 by 4.7 it's fully supported. IE runs 1.3 but NS6 runs 1.5 (1.4 doesn't exist it's like where is NS5) There are tons and tons of scripts that run in NS4 and IE but not in NS6. Why? Cause JavaScript support in Mozilla/NS6 is really not all there......yet.
Because.. If this feature was used in that respect (somebody makes last min change before their 1 week vacation) then that is understandable..
It's the thousands of developers who just plain don't care.. They don't test their code on other browsers, if it works on IE then it's fine.. Wrong!! It's not really a good thing to support bad coding practices..
What if gcc and msvc++ both compiled broken code.. ugh.. talk about a nightmare!!! they are very very picky, and for a good reason! (well other than the fact that C++ is a bit more complex than HTML, but you get my point)
It bothers me when some body (nobody here) tell's me that he hates all browsers except IE because IE is the only thing that will render his crapy webpage.. uhh.. yeah.. those people just need to get a clue. =)
All of the reasons that people on this board gave me for liking IE are legit and I agree with them for the most part, but it's the people who love IE because it fixes their crapy HTML code (the same code the probably wrote using front page).. I *HATE* that.
The one thing I still don't like about IE? It only runs on two OS's!!! (if you count any MS os as 1 os anyway)...... Mozilla? It runs on anything and everything just about.. Any flavor of unix, mac, windows, etc..
When I go home to use Linux (which I do) I have Mozilla sitting right there for me to use.. But no IE!!
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
Does anyone have a Microsoft Mouse with a scroll wheel. (I have the Microsoft Intellipoint with Intellieye mouse can't buy em anywhere anymore, not even on the MS site cause MS discontinued them cause of "lack of profits". But from what I saw I could never seem to buy them ANYWHERE cause they were always sold out cause I wanted another one for my other machine. I think MS didn't complete that phrase.... "lack of profits for the Explorer mouse which is just a useless piece of $70 plastic.) Ok off that rant.... on to the one that this post was suppose to be about... Anyway, if you try and scroll the wheel sometimes in NS while it's rendering/downloading the HTML you can screw up the whole rendering of the site. It's really werid. Happens to me a bunch on all sorts of sites. Including Netscape's own. Refresh the page and don't touch the mouse and the page works fine. This problem doesn't happen in IE.
Yes, when I boot to windows at home I use my microsoft explorer mouse.. It's a great product (probably made by an outside company for Microsoft, then paid to put Microsofts name on it.. Microsoft hardly ever invents something good, they always buy it and then make it better)..
I didn't think they stopped selling them.. My cousine got one just a few weeks ago.. If you can't find one just let me know and I will see if I can find one for you.
I've never had a problem with Netscape and the wheel.. in fact.. I have more problems with IE and the wheel.. my computer nearly freezes every time I use it (but that is my slow P266 at home, works fine here at work on both browsers)....
I think that is one of those bugs that only happens on some random computers or something.. probably caused by Windows, not netscape.. I notice that Windows causes a bunch of weird stuff to happen, but it is never the same on anybody's computer it seems.. I don't know why..
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
Use Mozilla, not NS6. if the last NS6 you used was PR1 or PR2 then you got the worst of the worst.. those were packaged horribly.. PR3 is OK, but the Mozilla nightly builds are still way ahead.
I have no clue what you are talking about as far as CSS support goes.. Some of their test pages use a LOT of CSS and it works fine!! CSS isn't 100% complete, but the support for it is there and it renders MOST pages fairly well already.
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
Like I said in another of my posts. I have used PR1, PR2 and I have PR3 but I don't use it. I use a nightly build that I download almost every other night usually after midnight.
I'm sitting here in netscape, mozilla and IE5.5 scrolling on each window as fast as I can (win2k box) and I have no problems at all..... I know for a fact the scroll works fine on NS when I use it at home in win98... I am a crazy scrolling fool so I know it works lol..
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
Dude, go get the latest nightly and come visit this forum..
It might not render the tables 100% perfect yet, but all of the mouse over [censored] that was wirtten for IE, works fine.. all of it..
If you are talking about crazy CSS/JavaScript that causes images to fly every where and interact with your mouse blah blah blah.. then no.. maybe it doesn't work 100% yet.. But it's pretty friggen close.. it's getting there.
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
Dude I'm looking at it RIGHT now............ -All- of the mouse over junk that works in IE is working fine!! I am seeing a few problems with tables and that is it.. everything else is great.. it looks like I'm friggen using IE.. and this is build # 2000101908 (2000-10-19--08)which means me and you are probably using the same build.
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
The mouse over stuff that was written for IE??? I believe it's pretty much a standard (if not said by W3C) that in img tags the alt text should be used as a tooltip pop up. I quickly checked when Eileen asked I quickly checked and now I rechecked on these boards and mine is not doing that. Also when I go on these boards the Reply, Index, etc images on the top right of a post hang off to the right of the screen. Now I know my screen size is not small too small to display the whole with cause IE does and plus I'm using 1024x768
And the Win98 machine is a friend of mine's. I dunno what he has. All I know is he can render 50 FPS in Unreal Tournament. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />
No no.. Netscape DID have a Netscape 5, it was source code and eventually got pulled.... Also calling it Netscape 6 is a marketing thing.. IE 6 will be out when NS 6 is, and they will both be compareable browsers.. Microsoft loves to jump versions also (or atleast give things new versions that don't deserve a new version!!!)
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
I didn't mean the code was IE specific, I mean the purpose of him putting it in there is for the IE users... It even use to say that in the config file when you setup hover links and what not.. "For IE!"
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
Drag your mouse over the links.. Put your mouse over Scream's name.... It all highlights just like it does in IE, but not in NS4.. Everything seems to work for me in Mozilla just like it does in IE.. I can see no differences.
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
Alright maybe there was a Netscape 5 (which I've heard stuff like that before) but I'm going to show you two things. I'll be using Mozilla Build 2000101908 as my example and IE 5.50.4134.0600 as my example.
Here's is the line of code I am using...
Your browser is: <pre><script> document.write(navigator.appName + " "); document.write(navigator.appVersion); </script></pre>
And IE output is... Your browser is: Microsoft Internet Explorer 4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0; DigExt)
And Mozilla output is.... Your browser is: Netscape 5.0 (Windows; en-US)
So granted. MS is retarded with making IE say 4.0 but AOL/Netscape are no better by making it say Netscape 5.0
I'm looking for stuff in IE but I have no clue what you are talking about... The only differences I see are mainly tool tips, messed up tables and that's really about it.
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
Regardless of which browser is better, or which is going to be better..
A good develop will take all of that in to account and try to write the site as best he can, so that anybody can still view it.
I hardly ever find my self surfing the web anymore.. Why? Very few sites have the content I want, the frills are nice, but when it comes down to it.. I want to read something worth while.. Screw the cool stuff!! It's fun to write, and fun to look at the first time you do it, after that it's just old and annoying.. even these hover links.. I don't really care for them.. They are nice, but only because they aren't really all that "hardcore" of a feature.. it's nice and subtle(sp?) like links w/o underlines.. I can live with that..... When you get into hardcore CSS it starts to get annoying (and slow)..
Mozilla's site might be plain and boring, but atleast I can download the nightly build OR the latest milestone with 1 click, no searching.. it's right there...... if I want to read some info? it's right there........
Look at this forum... It's nice layout.. easy on the eyes.. but honestly.. there isn't a LOT to the layout.. it's not all that complex, not a lot of images or frames or what not.. just some nice tables and a LOT of content.... I love it!! I can spend my time on this forum and NOT get annoyed like I do when I surf Microsoft's crapy webpage...
If all we had was plain HTML 3.0, light JavaScript and server side programing.. I would be completely 100% happy.. because everything else is nice, but it's not something I consider required in order to injoy the web.. It's just stuff that is fun to write and play with..
If I am trying to buy something online and the page is written to be browser specific.. forget it.. I won't buy from them.. It's just plain annoying.. It's not needed.. AT all.. period.. (for a shopping site)......... if it's somebodies personal site I might switch browsers to check it out, but that is all.. it's not like I will spend hours on that persons site because it is so great..
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
You're going to have to face the reality that we have HTML 4.0 and/or XHTML 1.0 , JavaScript, VBScript, Server Side, Cookies, Flash, Shockwave, and CSS and just learn to ignore it and deal with it.
And if I like those so what? I like em. And if my personal perference is IE cause it loads faster cause it's already 80% loaded in the kernel so what? If I like it cause of COM and ActiveX so what? The fact is I like IE and I think it's superior and really not much is gonna sway my opinion at this point. I used to be like Eileen called it "hardcore" Netscape fan, getting every beta and every copy. But now days you can keep your Netscape and Mozilla and give me IE.
lol no you didn't even hit the tip of the ice berg as far as languages go.... There is a lot more than that and half of them are worthless <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />
If used correctly, CSS and JavaScript can both be very awesome.. The problem is.. I haven't seen too many people use them correctly.... People seem to think JavaScript can be used to make sure people fill out correct data in forms.. Does this mean you can avoid doing it on the server side also? hell no.. that is huge security risk if you only check on client side.. and stupid too!!
I think it's funny when I see a webpage that has like 4 pages of JavaScript and you just sit there and wonder what the hell this person is trying do?! I mean it's great to use for small things, or little error checking.. adding up prices in a form etc.. opening up popup windows (for help, or to view an image or something legit, not banner ads)..
CSS? I've sene it used in some cool ways.. All of the small stuff that the user doesn't really see, but it makes the developers life a lot easier.. that is way cool.. but when it starts getting complex for almost no reason? jesus...
My friend had a webpage that had tables you could drag around on the website like a window.. that way you could put your content where you want it.. cool idea.. but it was slow.. and it was only cool for the first few times I went to the site.. after that it was just annoying.. waiting for it all to load, and doesn't work on anything but IE.. sheesh.. for what? I mean you don't even use it!!!
Also.. Have you looked at some of the specs for HTML 4.0? Some are worth while, but then you have stuff like.. replacements for I, B, and U tags?!?!?!?! WHY?!?! Why make them more complex?? Why have a STRONG tag replace B? I mean .. which is easier to type? which is easier to remember? which one keeps the doc. smaller? B!!!!! duh?! who the hell came up with all of these anyway? I would like to kick them in the butt.. They break the first rule of programming.. keep it simple, stupid.
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
I'm not trying to change anybody's opinions here.. heh.. I use Netscape and unfortuantly IE on a daily basis......... almost 100% of the sites I view work perfectly fine in Netscape and load just as quick as they do in IE........
One of my beef's with IE is that in order for it to be as fast as possible, you have to have active desktop on........ what happens when you do that? well... if IE crashes, your whole computer crashes and usually you have to reboot!!!!! with out active desktop on.. just ie crashes, not everything else.. ------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
FreeBSD? OpenBSD? Any unix worth using? I bet it isn't half as fast on Unix as it is on Windows lol.. It's main advantage as far as speed goes, is the fact that it is pretty much a part of your OS.. With out it, newer versions of WIndows won't even work I bet!!!
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
Solaris and hp-UX, actually....Solaris is nice. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> And we all know Linux isn't worth using at all.... *Trying to make this the longest thread of all time*
I know I didn't hit the tip of the iceburg there. I just named a couple.
Also I agree with you B and STRONG is stupid but it's targeted for those who can't remember that B stands for BOLD but it's besides the point that STRONG should have really called BOLD if we were to argee having it. I guess it's targeted for the newbies. Who knows.
As far as error checking, I combine my error checking client side and server side. Any security stuff would be server side but it's nice to remind the user that they forgot to fill out a required field without them having to submit the form and get it back.
lol.. I guess I found 2 people who like to argue as much as I do.. woohoo <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />
Personally I don't like the Linux community tooooo much.. But Linux it's self is great!!
I love FreeBSD also..
Since Solaris is mainly used for high-end servers, I have no clue why you would want IE or any gui on it for that matter..... I think I would just use Lynx instread. (I've been using that a lot latey and I'm actually starting to really like it.. how cool is it that you can telnet to a unix/linux box and surf the web from it downloading files?!?! that's too cool)
From work I can't ftp files to my server, and since wwwthreads can only be downloaded through http... I use lynx from my server and download it =) problem solved.
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
I don't have active desktop on. I hate active desktop. And IE is lightening fast for me. The shell is 80% IE so it's already loaded into memory so I wouldn't see why having Active Desktop is required. Active Desktop just loads the other 20% while Netscape needs to fully load each time. On my system clicking my IE button causes an IE window to automaticlly be loaded and then depending on the time of day I get to watch home.netscape.com lag and take it's sweet time loading.
Hey I use Slackware 7.1 on my servers. But I customize it plenty so it's hard to tell it was really Slackware. And it works fine. Both my servers have 180+ day uptimes
I agree.. client and server side.... just client side would be stupid.. (i've seen people do it!!!!!!!!!)
I have no clue why W3C wants B, U and I to be replaced like that.. even <bold> is too much to type..
Hop in Microsoft right quick for me and tell me what button you click to underline your text? or to make it bold? exactly.. B, I and U .. If users can understand that, then they can figure out <B> <I> and <U>.. Besides.. If they can't.. maybe they shouldn't quit their day job..
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
it pretty much turns everything into IE so IE is always running.. hehe.. it loads almost instantly.. those bastards.. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />
I never really used Netscapes page.. What I did was making my startup page bookmarks.html in netscape.. that way it not only loads faster, but you hvae all of your bookmarks right there.. I only visit a few pages, mostly forums and news sites.... If I want to look at stocks I have nasdaq bookmarked w/ all of the options selected.. so no need for a portal just to see stock on my startup page..
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
If anything they should make the <blink> tag <thisisablinktagdontuseme> instead.. I don't even think I can remember/spell their replacement for the I tag hehe..
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
Ah, you are talking about hover color here. This is a CSS standard, which netscape doesn't support. It's not a IE only thing. What everyone else is talking about is the alt tags, when you put your mouse over an image, it displays some text.
Well they said CSS so I figured that was the CSS they were talking about <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> I already knew that tool tips didn't work, but I am sure this is one of the least priorities right now in the Mozilla project.. I'm sure the latest versions of CSS and JavaScript are much more important to get working correctly than tool tips =)
The reason I said IE only feature was not because CSS is IE only.. I said it because I am pretty sure you put it in here thinking that only IE users could use it (in fact I remember seeing this in a comment in the config file, but that was a while back)
------------------------------------------------ Jeremy 'PeelBoy' Amberg
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="">quote:</font><hr /><font size="" face="">Originally posted by Jeremy Amberg: And think of all of those cool undocumented functions [IE] probably uses to help speed it up when netscape is stuck using microsofts purposly crapy functions lol...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="" face="">That is hilarious, actually.
