View Full Version : Why is Mozilla Firefox 1.0 better than IE ?
SeeMoreDigital
12th November 2004, 12:52
When creating your own web site pages. Does anybody know how to make "icons" appear in the address bar?
http://img123.exs.cx/img123/8849/SMD_FireFox_and_IE6.gif
I'm sure I managed to get it to work in the previous versions of the FireFox browser... but can't remember how I did it!
Cheers
sysKin
12th November 2004, 13:18
Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
When creating your own web site pages. Does anybody know how to make "icons" appear in the address bar?
Good way:
<head>
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="http://blahblahblah/favicon.ico" >
Very bad way that FF supports to mimic IE:
just save it under "/favicon.ico"
SeeMoreDigital
12th November 2004, 13:45
Thanks sysKin,
Both methods work well in FireFox... but not at all in IE6 ;)
Never mind eh!
Cheers
neo75903
12th November 2004, 16:15
maybe we should point neo geko out that his signature is not web compliant ;-)
SeeMoreDigital
12th November 2004, 16:18
Originally posted by neo75903
maybe we should point neo geko out that his signature is not web compliant ;-) It looks great in FireFox though :D
Cheers
jernst
12th November 2004, 18:17
Originally posted by neo75903
maybe we should point neo geko out that his signature is not web compliant ;-)
What signature ?
Do you mean his avatar ?
I never thought png was not web compliant. The fact that ie cannot render alpha transparency doesn't mean that it's not web compliant.
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/PNG/ (you'll see that ie for windows is not in the list of "modern browsers" that support png alpha channel, even if the specifications were made back in 1996)
SeeMoreDigital
12th November 2004, 18:30
In an world dominated by IE users, here's what Neo Neko's avitar looks like!
http://img117.exs.cx/img117/4045/avatarIE.gif
Cheers
Doom9
12th November 2004, 18:35
what's an avitar ;)
though I consider that one the least of IE's problems. If it were only for PNG rendering, I wouldn't suggest switching over.
jernst
12th November 2004, 18:40
Originally posted by Doom9
though I consider that one the least of IE's problems. If it were only for PNG rendering, I wouldn't suggest switching over. [/B]
Because of this, pngs didn't replace the heavy patented gifs on the web although pngs are far superior than gifs. I remember the dark days when the patent holders of gif wanted web site owners to pay royalties for using it. I don't remember why they stopped to claim these royalties though.
stephanV
12th November 2004, 18:43
heh... my firefox is broken... i dont see his avatar at all :rolleyes:
SeeMoreDigital
12th November 2004, 18:57
Originally posted by Doom9
what's an avitar ;) Damn my one fingered typing ;)
Anyway... poor old Neo Neko has turned into a geko!
Neo Neko
12th November 2004, 19:59
Originally posted by neo75903
maybe we should point neo geko out that his signature is not web compliant ;-)
My avatar is 100% standards compliant and is rendered by reference PNG decoders just fine. It is just a special type of PNG. Not only is it a transparent PNG which IE can't handle it is an 8 bit palated transparency PNG. Which IE absolutely flips out over. It is created by a program called PNGquant. Such images at this point are rare. But expect to see them become more common. As they offer better still quality over GIF etc with much better transparency in an even smaller size!
Neo Neko
12th November 2004, 20:05
Originally posted by sysKin
Good way:
<head>
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="http://blahblahblah/favicon.ico" >
Very bad way that FF supports to mimic IE:
just save it under "/favicon.ico"
Actually I don't see anything bad about the way Mozilla does it. In fact I rather preffer it. Mozilla's way is easily doable on any platform. IE's way requiring an actual ICO file is hard to reproduce on non-windows systems if not dificult on Windows even. I have tried using things other than ICOs with their extension renamed. It just didn't work. Plus the mozilla way allows for animated favorites Icons!
jernst
12th November 2004, 20:37
Originally posted by Neo Neko
IE's way requiring an actual ICO file is hard to reproduce on non-windows systems if not dificult on Windows even. I have tried using things other than ICOs with their extension renamed. It just didn't work. Plus the mozilla way allows for animated favorites Icons!
The worst thing is that it fills your web server's error log with request for inexistant file as it tries blindly to load /favicon.ico.
sysKin
13th November 2004, 04:31
Originally posted by Neo Neko
It is created by a program called PNGquant. Such images at this point are rare. But expect to see them become more common. As they offer better still quality over GIF etc with much better transparency in an even smaller size! Hah, thanks Neo Neko, nice program :) I just squeezed my avatar down to 3608 bytes.
:)
Radek
[edit] LOL I just checked it with IE. Haha~~~~~
geffroman
13th November 2004, 05:46
In the old days we used to have to program a web page and then reprogram it to work on Netscape as WELL as I.E.... (I was a Netscape hold out for many years) Now that almost everyone (80%+) uses I.E. that means web programming is less frustrating.
Now when a client asks that RARE question... "How come my web page doesn't look right on MY computer?"
All we have to say is "what browser are you using?" If it's NOT the Big Blue e then we say "Open your real browser, the one God gave you and it will look fine!"
At the end of the day, if you want world wide compatibility it just doesn't benefit you to buck the system... Learn to work well within it... If you are just the rebellious type, then you just need to live with the consequences of being a Reb...
Huggz and kisses...
sysKin
13th November 2004, 07:27
Originally posted by geffroman
In the old days we used to have to program a web page and then reprogram it to work on Netscape as WELL as I.E.... (I was a Netscape hold out for many years) Now that almost everyone (80%+) uses I.E. that means web programming is less frustrating.
Now when a client asks that RARE question... "How come my web page doesn't look right on MY computer?"
All we have to say is "what browser are you using?" If it's NOT the Big Blue e then we say "Open your real browser, the one God gave you and it will look fine!"
At the end of the day, if you want world wide compatibility it just doesn't benefit you to buck the system... Learn to work well within it... If you are just the rebellious type, then you just need to live with the consequences of being a Reb...
I don't quite understand you ;) but my current expierience is that IE is just a big pain for any web developer.
I'm not a web designer but I am responsible for keeping & updating one website. Of course I want it to work for everyone, so being a rebel is not an option. Any development consists of two steps: 1) code it 2) make sure it at least doesn't break anything in IE. The website I'm talking about works in IE, but is not as good as it should be...
IE bugs in CSS1 are pretty bad, and almost no support for CSS2 is a pain too. And all this while Gecko is slowly adopting CSS3 (which is not even finalized yet).
Same goes for Javascript, good thing I don't use it.
Radek
geffroman
13th November 2004, 09:10
Originally posted by sysKin
I don't quite understand you ;) but my current expierience is that IE is just a big pain for any web developer. Well I guess they could build sites to suit Mozilla users and forget about IE compatibility... Although I suspect web site owners would quickly FIRE those developers...
IE is what it is... But as long as the entire planet uses it alternate browsers just are not much a consideration... and the compatibility issues they bring to the table are not worth anyone's time to work around... At the end of the day web site owners pay the bills... developers need that money to eat... and web site visitors use IE... It is simple math really...
Most people I talk to that use NON IE browsers do it cause they dislike MS... not because anything else is actually much better... IMHO
It's kinda like politics... Hate America because are strong... Vote for Kerry because he's not Bush... But the world still wants to vacation at Disneyland... :D
sysKin
13th November 2004, 09:43
Originally posted by geffroman
Well I guess they could build sites to suit Mozilla users and forget about IE compatibility... Although I suspect web site owners would quickly FIRE those developers...
IE is what it is... But as long as the entire planet uses it alternate browsers just are not much a consideration... and the compatibility issues they bring to the table are not worth anyone's time to work around... At the end of the day web site owners pay the bills... developers need that money to eat... and web site visitors use IE... It is simple math really...
Most people I talk to that use NON IE browsers do it cause they dislike MS... not because anything else is actually much better... IMHO
It's kinda like politics... Hate America because are strong... Vote for Kerry because he's not Bush... But the world still wants to vacation at Disneyland... :D Let me tell you that, IMHO, you are very very wrong.
1, people who use "alternative" browsers DON'T do it because it's not microsoft. There is a HUGE usability gap between them, and anyone who says otherwise simply hasn't tried.
2, Websies that are IE-only are rare on internet. I've been using Firefox since version 0.8 and Mozilla for months before that - and I found one (ONE) site that doesn't work with them.
3, Almost all IE-only code simply means "I poked the code until it started to work on IE". If you concider this kind of development good, well, I disagree. If a developer simply knows what he's doing, his code WILL work on all browsers.
This has nothing to do with who's paying the bills - good code is good code and sloppy code is bad, regardless of programming language, market dominance, expectations or anything else. Sloppy code can break ANYTIME, even after XP SP2 installation, so don't tell me it's what anyone expects.
IE is a pain not because it's not compatible with Mozilla, or W3C standards, but because its interpretation of code is illogical. If you want to make IE-only website it's simply much more difficult, because you never know what IE will do and will not do and why. This is what I meant.
Mug Funky
13th November 2004, 10:47
IE is what it is... But as long as the entire planet uses it alternate browsers just are not much a consideration... and the compatibility issues they bring to the table are not worth anyone's time to work around...
myopic to say the least.
if you were designing a public building, would you exclude wheelchair ramps because "the entire world" is able bodied? of course, Mozilla/FireFox are far more able than IE, but to alienate even a small section of your user base is to lose customers.
every major site that i've found incompatibilities with, i've emailed them promptly and told them to make their site Web Compliant. otherwise it's simply a broken website that i will not continue to visit.
as for being rebellious, well, guilty as charged. but i'm not a fool, either.
i come because it's not MS, but i stay because it's faster, prettier, safer and works better.
also, the term "alternative" browser throws MS's anticompetitive nature into sharp relief, don't you think? i'd prefer to call them "compliant" browsers :)
and i stopped wanting to holiday in disneyland when i was about 4 years old. i don't want to go to the US at all, unless i have to. there's hundreds of countries i'd go to first. sorry if that offends anybody's patriotism.
geffroman
13th November 2004, 12:44
I never suggested web sites should be built deliberatly to NOT work with NON IE browsers... I simply suggest that you need to be 100% compatible with IE to reach 80% to 90% of your audience... any extra time and money a business spends on supporting compatibility issues with alternative browsers is a business decision they have to make...
We offer 100% IE compatibility to our clients... If they have issues with non IE browsers and want to pay for us to spend time working those issues we will do it...
By the way I am in my 40s... and I still go to Disneyland... It's not just for kids... :D
sysKin
13th November 2004, 13:32
Originally posted by geffroman
We offer 100% IE compatibility to our clients... If they have issues with non IE browsers and want to pay for us to spend time working those issues we will do it...I just checked the website from your signature and I believe I finally understand you.
I won't actually comment on the code I see there - I mean, HTML 3 FRAMESET might be very absolete, but it's a valid standard and it should work, and it actually does work OK.
However, if you claim that the differences in rendering between IE and Gecko, as seen here, are Gecko's fault then you're really mistaken. The site's design is trying very hard to break all possible rules of interoperability with anything. The site not only breaks with browsers different than IE, but also - for example - works very hard to keep Google (or anything else) from indexing it. Even if someone would pay you, you won't be able to fix it, because the whole design is absolete and it's not possible to make it render any better.
I'm wondering, why are you doing this? Lazyness? No clue? As long as your clients know all this it's OK I guess - just make sure they DO know it's IE-site and not a website...
PiXuS
13th November 2004, 14:14
@geffroman
Sorry to be so rude, but your logic is somewhat flawed. You shouldn't say you first want your web site to work when viewed through IE, but instead say you build you web site according to the Microsoft ""standards"" of what the web should be.
If you were building your web site according to what the W3C had to say about it (and, ethically, you should (yeah, I know.. ethics don't pay ;) )), it would be correctly seen through a W3C standards compliant browser (i.e. Firefox, Mozilla, Opera I think) but not on a non-W3C standards compliant browser (i.e. IE!).
See.. it is that simple. You either follow the Microsoft path and alienate those who don't (and that is obviously what Microsoft consciously wants you to do!) or you be strong (or stupid? :D ) and code for the standards.
neo75903
13th November 2004, 15:27
It's kinda like politics... Hate America because are strong... Vote for Kerry because he's not Bush... But the world still wants to vacation at Disneyland...
Yes maybe, but we also say USA is like Disney, once you seen it you dont wanna go back anymore :)
jernst
13th November 2004, 15:54
Originally posted by geffroman
[B]I never suggested web sites should be built deliberatly to NOT work with NON IE browsers... I simply suggest that you need to be 100% compatible with IE to reach 80% to 90% of your audience... any extra time and money a business spends on supporting compatibility issues with alternative browsers is a business decision they have to make...
If you follow the standards not only your website will look nice in compliants web browsers but it will also work in IE. Maybe it'll look a little bit less nice in IE (missing CSS rules, etc.) but it'll be 100% usable (and you'll reach 100% of your audience).
If you start the other way round not only your website will not be usable in compliant browsers but you'll have to start your website over when (if ever it happens) Microsoft upgrade their browser/os.
I'm also designing websites and when my customer complain that their site doesn't look as nice as the screenshot we gave them I'm always happy to install firefox on their computers and tell them that IE is not able to render the special css effects/png alpha that are needed for the layout he choose.
dragongodz
13th November 2004, 20:35
i am surprised nobody picked this up.
"Open your real browser, the one God gave you and it will look fine!"
bill gates is god ?????????? :devil:
At the end of the day, if you want world wide compatibility it just doesn't benefit you to buck the system... Learn to work well within it... If you are just the rebellious type, then you just need to live with the consequences of being a Reb...
If they have issues with non IE browsers and want to pay for us to spend time working those issues we will do it...
its that sort of attitude that makes MS a monopoly in more areas than just OS.
Hate America because are strong
or maybe just dislike some americans "we are the best at everything"(when they are not) attitude. i know that even goes for some americans aswell since i have a freind who is over here for holidays(from the U.S.) and he and his wife both say the same. :D
neo75903
14th November 2004, 00:10
@jernst:
idd alpha rendering in IE is horrible hope they will fix that as well.
geffroman
14th November 2004, 06:24
Let me defend myself a little...
First off our POS site was built by my son with an old version of Frontpage (who is 12) because he wanted to learn and he got extra credit for it at school... I was impressed for a first time effort... I don't really use it professionally... It's mostly parking space for Free DVD Stuff...
As to my remarks about being I.E. compatible first... That was misspoken a little on my part... I believe you should be MS compliant... this gets you 99% of the way there with I.E. and 80 to 90% of the viewers using I.E....
As to Gates being GOD... No... Can't stand the geek... He was college dork that got lucky when IBM thought they didn't need to license the code for DOS... He stole every good piece of code he ever sold... It was a JOKE... :D
As to Mr. Gecko or some website named Gecko I have not read the thread deeply enough to know who he is or what website you guys are talking about or what is wrong with his code... My point has been about really one thing only... "Work with the known standards that satisfy 80 to 90% of the paying public and you won't have too much care about Mozilla, Godzilla or Yada Yada Zilla..."
As to America... well no point in arguing that... The world vacations here year after year... It is a lovely country with more visitable Geography than most any other place... and the most diverse section of people to laugh at that you have ever seen... I have friends I visit in Scotland, Ireland, the Free Stadt of Bavaria and Austria and they visit me when they can... I miss fruehschoppen in Hohenschwangau... There are good people everywhere... Don't let world politics convince you were are not all friends... Don't let corrupt world leaders and a PRESS with hidden agendas worldwide divide us... and go to Disneyland often... It will keep you young and fun...!
Huggz and Kisses... Jeff
dragongodz
14th November 2004, 07:01
with an old version of Frontpage
and theres the culprit. as already said MS make their products non compliant.
I believe you should be MS compliant... this gets you 99% of the way there with I.E. and 80 to 90% of the viewers using I.E....
but thats what we are saying is wrong. you should be W3C compliant as that IS the standard. web sites and the public etc should be trying to force MS to follow the rules, not segment it so you HAVE to use their programs. thats called a monopoly.
As to Gates being GOD... No... Can't stand the geek... He was college dork that got lucky when IBM thought they didn't need to license the code for DOS... He stole every good piece of code he ever sold... It was a JOKE... as was my reply. i was just being a little devilish. :D
As to Mr. Gecko or some website named Gecko I have not read the thread deeply enough to know who he is or what
Gecko is the page rendering engine used by mozilla/firefox.
My point has been about really one thing only... "Work with the known standards that satisfy 80 to 90% of the paying public and you won't have too much care about Mozilla, Godzilla or Yada Yada Zilla..."
thats the point. MS do NOT follow the standard so should NOT be supported.
There are good people everywhere
of course, good and bad in every country. the media(film, television, politics etc) however do push this "we are the best at everything and always right" attitude to the rest of the world. that DOES get up peoples noses as it simply is not true. :)
geffroman
14th November 2004, 07:49
Originally posted by dragongodz
the media(film, television, politics etc) however do push this "we are the best at everything and always right" attitude to the rest of the world. that DOES get up peoples noses as it simply is not true. :) American media speaking to Americans does not talk about our standing in the world except when 3 countries HIP deep in Oil for FOOD scandal get in our way in Iraq... We don't much think about France or Germany when we are talking about anything else... You have to keep in mind that the MEDIA as you know it is what you get fed locally by YOUR media companies... Since we don't much consider other countries when discussing much of anything here I find it hard to understand how what we think even affects them...
I do know that countries with government controlled media outlets like France top the list of US haters... It's easy to get a nose in a snit if you are only shown what your government wants you to see... If you watched US media you would find little of us talking down about others because we are little focused on them to begin with... We are too busy battling each other in the name of democracy... :D
Trust me on this...I live here... Basic perception around the US is this:
Germany: Home of Hitler. Killer of Jews. Not reflective of German People. Great Beer. Great people. Top Industrialized Nation. Lot's of Vacation time.
French: Champagne. Talk big. Avoid a fight no matter what. Rude to foreigners. Especially women. Home of the crescent and the Tower. Supports embargo on Iraq while selling arms illegally behind the world's back.
Australia: PARTY!! Kangaroos. Gooday. Shrimp on the BarB. That girlie man Crock Hunter.
Britain: Original World Terrorist. Pinkie finger up with Tea. Now best friend because we are the strongest. Pretentious. Boring. Foggy. Terrible Food. Sherlock Holmes. Own a lot of America.
Ireland: Great bands. Drunk. Stubborn as hell. (I Still don't understand how a nation surrounded by water was almost wiped out by lack of Potatoes... FISH MAN... FISH! Back bone of America.
Russia: Broke. Old. Decaying. Proved communism is wrong. Ugly accent for a woman. Supports embargo on Iraq while selling arms illegally behind the world's back.
China: Still proving Communism is wrong. Short. Supports embargo on Iraq while selling arms illegally behind the world's back.
Japan: We are still very sorry. But they kicked our ass with Stereos and Cars to get even. Smoke to much. Smart.
Mexico: Yuck.
Canada: Who cares. They can't even decide if they are French or not. :DThese are the stereo types we hear. Right or wrong. But all of these countries and many more are OUR HOMES... We came from there, not here! Less than 1% of our population is native. So when you think badly of us. You are talking about YOUR relatives!
Often the PERCEPTION of us thinking we are better than the rest is grown at HOME by those that feel discounted, not by anything we do or say... Yet you spend a few minutes here and you see most are pretty pleased to meet a foreigner... Being an American is NOT like being English or French or Russian... Being American is more like joining a Club... You still get to be English or French or whatever as a US citizen... You just get to join the Free society that TRYs to play by rules of self governance... I suspect it's not so different there... Australia is primarily a society of transients as well... You see even a boat load of criminals from England can build a great country... :D But no matter how much Madonna (opps excuse me now RUTH), who chooses to crap on her own country that made her a bazillionaire, wants to be British, she will NEVER be English... She's a wanna be... But anyone can be American... or NOT... It's not a place as much as it's an oath to a type of society...
Sorry for the derailing there guys... I'm off now... :D
Neo Neko
14th November 2004, 09:27
Originally posted by geffroman
In the old days we used to have to program a web page and then reprogram it to work on Netscape as WELL as I.E.... (I was a Netscape hold out for many years) Now that almost everyone (80%+) uses I.E. that means web programming is less frustrating.
Unless you say to yourself surely there is a better/easier way to do "this" and happen to look at the standard. And then say "my god this is so easy and powerfull!" only then to implement it and find out that your browser does not support standards that make everyones life easier. Easier for designers to create pages. Simpler/easier/faster for your audience to load even over slow connections. And finally massively easier for content indexers to propperly parse and drive your audience to you. Not being able to do that is what is frustrating.
Originally posted by geffroman
Now when a client asks that RARE question... "How come my web page doesn't look right on MY computer?"
All we have to say is "what browser are you using?" If it's NOT the Big Blue e then we say "Open your real browser, the one God gave you and it will look fine!"
Oh I'm sorry but the answer we were looking for was C. Design a website that will degrade/break gracefully in IE. It's not hard to hide standards compliant bits of code from IE to keep it from freaking out. And you can go further and replace those bits with broken code IE likes if IE users are that important to you. There is not much that IE can do that Mozilla/Gecko can't do these days. Well unless you count getting infected by activex controlls that compromise the whole OS. Actually it is the other way round any more. There is alot that Mozilla/Gecko can do that IE can't. NS4 grew to be a dog sure. But NS is not MOZ. MOZ has replaced NS and has even recreated NS in it's own image. Designing for Mozilla is quite honestly mostly a joy. I can do things so simply and easily. Much easier than in IE in general.
Originally posted by geffroman
At the end of the day, if you want world wide compatibility it just doesn't benefit you to buck the system...
Yes and no. If you want world wide compatability go with the least functional lowest common denominator. But if we go with the lowest common denominator things never improve or get better. Microsoft in action. Personaly I am all for the betterment of mankind. If the requires bucking the system. So be it. Something is not right just because you can.
geffroman
14th November 2004, 09:40
Originally posted by Neo Neko
And you can go further and replace those bits with broken code IE likes if IE users are that important to you. If you are in business to make money then YES I would say IE users are pretty important... Check your web stats...
They make up 80 to 90% OR MORE of the visitors...
virus
14th November 2004, 11:43
Originally posted by geffroman
IE users are pretty important... They make up 80 to 90% OR MORE of the visitors...
Oh, well, if you keep on discriminating the alternative browsers' users that way you won't see many of them on your site, that's for sure.
BTW according to the stats (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp) over at W3Schools the IE5/6 users right now are ~75% of the total, a neat 9% loss compared to the 84% in January. On a personal off-topic note (I'm a long time user of the big red O browser), the simple fact that almost 70% of the people out there use a piece of crap like IE6 and just 2% use a fast, small-sized, full-featured suite like Opera tells me that we live in a bad, bad, bad world.
virus
dragongodz
14th November 2004, 13:32
American media speaking to Americans does not talk about our standing in the world
i never said your standing in the world but attitude of "we are the best in the world". there is a difference. :)
You have to keep in mind that the MEDIA as you know it is what you get fed locally by YOUR media companies
sorry, wrong. we happen to get every major U.S made motion picture, we get all the major fiction tv shows(such as freinds, sopranos etc etc) and even news based shows(good morning america, meet the press etc). so i actually do know the attitude from U.S. media.
this as all so way off topic though that best we just leave it. :D
geffroman
14th November 2004, 15:10
Originally posted by dragongodz
but attitude of "we are the best in the world". sorry, wrong. we happen to get every major U.S made motion picture, we get all the major fiction tv shows(such as freinds, sopranos etc etc) and even news based shows(good morning america, meet the press etc). so i actually do know the attitude from U.S. media.
I did not realize Friends, Sopranos and Good Morning America spent time talking UP America at the expense of other countries...
You are actually MAKING my point... if you think you can determine US attitudes based on some crap TV shows and liberal NEWS Talk shows you really DON'T know what Americans think...
We just had an election that brought out record numbers of people REJECTING the liberal bias in this country... That means as a majority we REJECT Hollywood types and their views... which are reflected in the MEDIA you specify...
Fact is we are the richest country in the world because we are a melting pot of all the nations in the world... It is our diversity that makes us strong... We are nothing more than English, French, German, Irish, Australian, etc etc immigrants that built a free society... We have more... we GIVE more... and we are at times bashed for no more than that...
When someone needs money, aid, food, or military might we tend to be top on the list for handouts... And we as citizens keep paying half our income in taxes to pay for it all... Don't misinterpret US Pride and Patriotism as arrogance... And as much as I have been positive and friendly, I am getting tired of some of the bitterness and envy I sense in these posts, so I'll sign off this thread and wish you all the best and urge you all to come visit...
dragongodz
14th November 2004, 16:09
I did not realize Friends, Sopranos and Good Morning America spent time talking UP America at the expense of other countries...
you should try watching them more closly then. most U.S. tv shows will at some point say "the U.S. is the greatest country" or "we are the best at" blah blah blah. as i already said its that attitude that can irritate people.
if you think you can determine US attitudes based on some crap TV shows and liberal NEWS Talk shows you really DON'T know what Americans think
try actually reading my posts. i happen to have some american freinds here on holiday right now and they agree that attitude is portrayed in the media. i never said its true of the man in the street.
We have more... we GIVE more... and we are at times bashed for no more than that
oh excuse me while i cry a f*cking river why dont you. i guess you DO have that attitude afterall.
Don't misinterpret US Pride and Patriotism as arrogance
saying your the greatest, the best, do the most is pride ? no its B.S. because its not true. yes some great things have been done and come from america but the same can be said of MANY other countries.
And as much as I have been positive and friendly, I am getting tired of some of the bitterness and envy I sense in these posts
HAHAHA excuse me while i pick myself back up. thats rich. listen try actually reading what people type. there is absolutly NO envy in my posts. silly me i just tried to explain WHY sometimes people have bad feelings towards the U.S. but hey you want to think everyones envious of you and your country. thats your problem.
maybe it goes hand in hand with your attitude of MS not following standards. is that right ? do you think people are envious of MS and thats why they complain ? i really pity you if you think thats the case.
i WONT bother to reply to any more of this rubbish from you.
Mug Funky
14th November 2004, 16:16
hmm... i think i agree with DragonGodz here.
as far as having more and giving more, that's probably true. but it's the strings attached that cheapen the whole thing.
argh... i've got a lot of points to make, but all of them would involve me (deservingly) getting a strike from the doom9 mods.
i'll say this though - immensely powerful countries should take the time to look honestly at themselves. introspection is a rare thing these days, and it's needed more than ever. i yearn for governments to do this - look at themselves and ask if they're really doing the right thing, or if they're just in it for the next election, rather than being in it for their grandchildren.
...man, this is way OT.
anyway, i haven't tried firefox yet, but mozilla is serving me well. kicks the bollocks off IE.
Neo Neko
14th November 2004, 21:04
Originally posted by geffroman
If you are in business to make money then YES I would say IE users are pretty important... Check your web stats...
They make up 80 to 90% OR MORE of the visitors...
Actually they only make up 20-30% on several of mine. But I am not going to try and claim that is any more normal a claim than your 80-90% claim. It varries widely from site to site and browser UA strings are not any way to tell what software is visiting you. Let me go to some of your sites and I will leave you with a whole host of unusual and unique UA strings. :D Just because something says it is IE does not make it so. I would hazard a guess that on sites with 80% or more visitors claiming to be IE that 10 to 20% of those are opera or Mozilla masquarading as IE to get around blocks in poorly written pages. Determining real browser usage requires testing something more active than a UA string. Like the core rendering/javascript engines for specific differences.
jorel
15th November 2004, 11:47
Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
In an world dominated by IE users, here's what Neo Neko's avitar looks like!
http://img117.exs.cx/img117/4045/avatarIE.gif
Cheers
really strange and a big surprise.
see how Neo Neko's avatar show in my IE 6.0.2800 1106
http://img5.exs.cx/img5/167/avatar198.jpg
what's the reason?
:confused:
jernst
15th November 2004, 12:12
Originally posted by jorel
really strange and a big surprise.
see how Neo Neko's avatar show in my IE 6.0.2800 1106
http://img5.exs.cx/img5/167/avatar198.jpg
what's the reason?
:confused:
I don't know how SMD saw the Neo Neko's avatar this way on Internet Explorer, but the way you see it is the way Internet Explorer is rendering it because of it's buggy png support. If you want more informations about the lack of png alpha transparency support in IE, read: http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngstatus.html#browsers
Neo Neko
15th November 2004, 21:07
Originally posted by jernst
I don't know how SMD saw the Neo Neko's avatar this way on Internet Explorer, but the way you see it is the way Internet Explorer is rendering it because of it's buggy png support. If you want more informations about the lack of png alpha transparency support in IE, read: http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/pngstatus.html#browsers
It looks as if SMD saved the image and converted it to a GIF. Causing the file to look worse and bloat in the process. :p Ack GIF! Anyhow in general IE totally ignores any transparency that is more than 1bit gif style as the link points out. Instead it will display the saved background color if there is one or use pure white as a background. Generally defeating the purpose of using PNG in the first place. And things get worse when you use 256 color indexed PNGs with more than 1bit transparency. As you can see not only does IE now render the transparency wrong but completely screws up the image. It is really rather interesting and I discovered it by accident. I can use the exact same settings on other images and the results are not always the same. A few images like my avatar completely screw IE up. But most others with the same settings only have the usual transparency rendering issues. It sure seems like Microsoft does not like me. :devil:
jernst
15th November 2004, 21:43
For those interested in alpha transparency for their website's images you can use mishoo's script to fix ie rendering while keeping your website standard compliant.
http://www.bazon.net/mishoo/articles.epl?art_id=430
If you don't want to use this lightweight javascript and you are satisfied with gif-like binary transparency use indexed color png's (but it won't look as nice as neo neko's avatar).
ukb007
16th November 2004, 02:27
Hi.
Maybe Neo Neko should tell us right now which of the two red pictures: the small mysterious one or the big definitive one, that he actually owns as his avatar. I've seen numerous posts by him, always with the small mysterious red symbol as his avatar. Now I find that I may have been in a Matrix where nothing is what it seems.
Only Neo Neko can relieve this agony. If he himself is real, that is.
Regards.
sysKin
16th November 2004, 04:40
Originally posted by ukb007
Only Neo Neko can relieve this agony. If he himself is real, that is.
Why do you need him for that :) just save the picture to your disk and view it in any working picture viewer. Same goes for my avatar.
Neither of the two posted pictures is his avatar, they were just two examples of how IE can (incorrectly) render them.
Alternatively, use a modern webrowser...
Neo Neko
16th November 2004, 06:19
Originally posted by ukb007
Hi.
Maybe Neo Neko should tell us right now which of the two red pictures: the small mysterious one or the big definitive one, that he actually owns as his avatar. I've seen numerous posts by him, always with the small mysterious red symbol as his avatar. Now I find that I may have been in a Matrix where nothing is what it seems.
Only Neo Neko can relieve this agony. If he himself is real, that is.
Regards.
Well as stated you could download and view in anything other than IE for the most part. Anything will render it better than IE. It looks something like this.
http://neoneko.ath.cx.nyud.net:8090/tempfiles/demo2.png
That is however not a true representation of it as it no longer has any transparency so that your browser will render it correctly. The original image is much more versatile taking on subtle shades of any background it is placed over. Something more along the lines of....
http://neoneko.ath.cx.nyud.net:8090/tempfiles/demo.png
Only more versatile still! And teensy tiny. Smaller than even the closest less capable gif.
jernst
16th November 2004, 19:45
Originally posted by ukb007
Hi.
Maybe Neo Neko should tell us right now which of the two red pictures: the small mysterious one or the big definitive one, that he actually owns as his avatar. I've seen numerous posts by him, always with the small mysterious red symbol as his avatar. Now I find that I may have been in a Matrix where nothing is what it seems.
Only Neo Neko can relieve this agony. If he himself is real, that is.
Regards.
When Morpheus and Neo meet, Morpheus offers Neo two pills. The red pill will answer the question "what is the Matrix?" (by removing him from it) and the blue pill simply for life to carry on as before. As Neo reaches for the red pill Morpheus warns Neo "Remember, all I'm offering is the truth. Nothing more."
The question then is not about pills, but what they stand for in these circumstances. The question is asking us whether reality, truth, is worth pursuing. The blue pill will leave us as we are, in a life consisting of habit, of things we believe we know. We are comfortable, we do need truth to live. The blue pill symbolises commuting to work every day, or brushing your teeth.
The red pill is an unknown quantity. We are told that it can help us to find the truth. We don't know what that truth is, or even that the pill will help us to find it. The red pill symbolises risk, doubt and questioning. In order to answer the question, you can gamble your whole life and world on a reality you have never experienced.
http://img66.exs.cx/img66/3567/firefox_red_pill_2.png
excerpts taken from: http://www.arrod.co.uk/essays/matrix.php
ukb007
17th November 2004, 01:30
Many thanks for your literate and scintillating reply. The clear choises now are: Do I take the red pill or do I take the red one? (Like in Finding Nemo he said: "Did your man deliver, or did he deliver?")
Regards.
jernst
22nd November 2004, 16:56
Originally posted by PiXuS
I'm talking about the behavior of Opera regarding the tabs. With Opera, you don't have the specifically save a group of tabs. With Opera, you simply close the application and when you re-open it, it loads all the tabs you had open in the previous session exactly where you were (at the correct page, with the correct font size, with the correct history of each tab).
If Mozilla 1.8a4 cannot do it, I don't see how 1.7.3 could.
I think that this extension for firefox does exactly what you are looking for:
http://www.extensionsmirror.nl/index.php?showtopic=166
Regards.
Atamido
23rd November 2004, 07:33
Originally posted by Doom9
You know I love it if somebody calls a missing usability feature a bug.. just makes me wanna throw up. And it's the typical arrogance of open sourcers unwilling to admit that they could possibly be wrong. It's what going to keep most open source projects in the dark forever, letting the Microsoft's of this world rule for a long time to come. While I don't know all of them, I interact with some Mozilla devs on almost a daily basis. They have always been friendly from the first time I asked a CSS question on irc.mozilla.org. Even when I have pointed out possible bugs, they have always (very nicely) encouraged me to search bugzilla for an existing bug, and make an example page to submit if there isn't one. As of yet I haven't had to submit anything, and I have had some doozies. (That may change soon)
That being said, it is important to point out that there is always a preference to doing thing 'technically correct' rather than in a way that is 'nice'. The W3C specs are the standard that they go against. So, you break a line where you are supposed to, and don't where you're not.
Also, the CSS2 spec is not fully implemented yet. I think all of CSS1 is. And small parts of CSS3 are. You won't run into much from CSS2 that isn't done yet though. So if your page doesn't look how you think it should in FF/Moz, the chances are you have done something wrong. First try to validate, then ask for advice on irc.mozilla.org.
Finally, if a page does not validate (http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http%3A//forum.doom9.org/showthread.php%3Fs%3D%26threadid%3D85163%26perpage%3D20%26pagenumber%3D4), then there is not technically a correct way to display it. It becomes best guess and no one has legitimate bragging rights.
Atamido
23rd November 2004, 07:49
Originally posted by jernst
Because of this, pngs didn't replace the heavy patented gifs on the web although pngs are far superior than gifs. I remember the dark days when the patent holders of gif wanted web site owners to pay royalties for using it. I don't remember why they stopped to claim these royalties though. The patents that were used in GIFs ran out recently. You can now use them all you want. Although as I recall, it was only an issue for anyone creating a GIF, or programs that supported creation.
Also, the alpha thing really didn't have anything to do with PNG not replacing GIF. The reason is that 8-bit PNG with single bit transparency works fine in IE. In this mode it is almost identical to GIF, only smaller.
Why would people not use PNG if it can be a drop in replacement for all of their non-animated GIFs, but take less space? People are too lazy. Look at this forum. They could use IrfanView (http://www.irfanview.com/) to mass convert all of the GIFs to PNGs, and then run them through something like this (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=16167) to make sure they are the smallest possible size. Total time <5 minutes. After that, do a find/replace in the code to have it load the .png instead. Instant bandwidth savings. Do this for all of the non-animated avatars to save even more bandwidth.
I'm not picking on Doom9, just making a point. Even self proclaimed "nerd" site Slashdot (http://slashdot.org/) uses GIFs instead of PNGs even though there is absolutely no reason and the bandwidth savings on such a major site would fairly significant.
The fact that 8-bit alpha transparency doesn't work right in IE without some nasty toying is simply a major irritation.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.