LMAO @ Netscape

[progressive]

Take a look at the two pictures attached and spot the differences.

I found it quite amusing that netscape's web developers can't
even support their own browser corectly :)

[Rick Bull]

Hehe. The thing is all the main browsers sites are pretty badly coded. The only one that actually validates (if memory servers correctly ;)) is Opera's. I was really suprised to find Mozilla's site has loads of errors.

[progressive]

I just upgraded from NN6.1 to NN6.2...the go button is now in the near vascinity of the search box but is still out a little..lol.

[Rick Bull]

Oh NS 6.1, you would have trouble then :D 6.0 and 6.1 were quite bad in some areas.

[progressive]

Check this out for more strange behaviour
from a site that I maintain at work.

Url is in the location bar of the attached image !

[punkpie_uk]

Thats pretty cool. I wonder if its related to the screen resolution, what res are you using?

[progressive]

ahah, I've just had a look at why this was happening turns out there are two images with the same name attribute. If you do a image swap NN6 it must change the first element it comes to with a matching name other browes IE NN4 must take the last element.

I'll have to update that now....the design company that did the initial work on this site made a lot of mistakes I'm forever correcting them....

;)

[Barney Calhoun]

This is kinda retarded since NS7 is already released and you are talking about ns6.Its like saying that something doesnt work in IE5.Besides, Mozilla is the browser you should be using,not NS.

[progressive]

ohh you shouldn't of said that..... who you callin retarded, you
people really p*ss me off who go on about "you should use this
browser because it complies to standards" who gives a ***** not
me I'm a professional web developer....that means...my clients
want sites that work in as many browsers as possible not
your "lets bow down to it because it makes life easier" mozilla.

Your just a lazy f8cker who couldn't make websites work in a multitude of browsers so you decide to rant about a browser that makes your life easier in the hope that we'll all boycot non standard compliant browsers.

Stick that in you pipe and smok it you lzy......ohhh.

note: other members of the forum please excuse my abuse at this member, but I'm sure you'll agree these people wind us up !



:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Cander]

ok that was a dumb comment as NS7 as just put out and it is a preview, not a full release..And I got news for ya..Mozilla is not much better...Netscape and Mozilla are bloated pieces of junk...even on Linux Mozilla moves like a dead goat..

[Cander]

it is cool progressive as I hate these people too. They are so confident that Mozilla is soooo great. Why? Probably because it is open source and people are getting brainwashed into thinking open soruce = best...its crap, its slow, its bloated.. Opera and IE for me thank you very much.

The funny thing is, is how many people say open source is great because you can go in and change the code if you want..turns out that out all the people that say this is great, probably only 2% of those people would even know what they hell they were doing:rolleyes:

[punkpie_uk]

c'mon barney, you should know that professional websites should be made backwards compatible, esp. sites to do with banks like barcleycard.

I'm not having a go at you personally but even micro$oft.com does it.

[CiberTHuG]

Originally posted by Cander
They are so confident that Mozilla is soooo great. Why? Probably because it is open source and people are getting brainwashed into thinking open soruce = best...its crap, its slow, its bloated.. Opera and IE for me thank you very much.


Please, tell me you aren't really this stupid. This was meant as humor, right?

[Rick Bull]

I think Moz/NS are great browsers, the only reason I use Opera over it is the ability to turn images on/off at the click of a button, and the MDI interface. Moz/NS does seem very slow to load though.

[progressive]

I can't comment on this as I haven't played with mozilla, but in my
opinion good things come from open source eventually. However
lets put this in perspective, it's work in progress using the latest standards. standards that in the long run will make threads like
this a thing of the past as all browsers will adhere to standards
and make intricatley designed website a whole lot easier to code....by which time we'll pobbably all be running web dev
departments and will be cringing at how easy it is for our
fledgling developers to create great sites

In the mean time I'm going to continue to find ways to code that will work in as many browsers as possible and if that means going against the standards and creating un-compliant code then
i don't care.

all who agree say yeah those who disagree go back to creating
fantastic looking sites that 70+% of internet users can't view. :D

[CiberTHuG]

I think Moz/NS are great browsers, the only reason I use Opera over it is the ability to turn images on/off at the click of a button, and the MDI interface. Moz/NS does seem very slow to load though.


I hate Netscape. It has a good heart, but it has so much crap around it. I love Opera, it is a very fast browser. I love it's mouse gestures, configurablity, and MDI. But it isn't much more compliant than IE. Now, it does support @media projection, which no other browser supports. I have hope for Opera. And it is a good daily browser.

Mozilla is larger than IE, but I haven't noticed it being any slower. They are both slow compared to Opera, but everything is slow compared to Opera.

Originally posted by progressive
However
lets put this in perspective, it's work in progress using the latest standards.


Latest standards? We are talking about standards that were finalized four years ago. This is not cutting edge technology. HTML 4 and CSS 2 are four years old. I expect any browser to support these. Regretably, I've only found one browser that makes an attempt, Mozilla. Opera tries. IE doesn't even pretend to try.


all who agree say yeah those who disagree go back to creating
fantastic looking sites that 70+% of internet users can't view.

That's because 70% of the internet users are idiots. Hell, the majority of Americans are idiots. Again, I bring up the Ford Explorer. And all I have to say is, if you die in it, it is your own damned fault. I you can't see my page, which uses four year old technology, then it is your own damned fault.

I can't waste my time catering to truely stupid people. All that does is promote stupidity.

If you do not talk down to your audience, they will rise to the occasion.

[progressive]

Why are they stupid because you say so ?

They go to hundreds of websites a week that all look visually attractive.
They go to yours and your layers are all over the place.
Your footer is a header you make error boxes pop up and generally
make there visit unpleasent.
Then they read you sign "all stupid people ugrade to my prefered
browser" or go somewhere else to spend your money. what do
you think they'll do ?

[progressive]

This thread has gone way of track now but at the start of the
thread I was laughing at how netscape made their site look best
in IE !

Maybe they should have made their sites look best in NN6 and
not cater for IE so that people with IE wouldn't be able to find
the download NN6 button therfore no stupid people would be
able to download there slightly more compliant browser.

Surely they'd get more downloads that way ;)

[CiberTHuG]

I've been thinking, stupid is probably the wrong word. Ignorant is probably better.

As to my preffered browser. You can use any standards compliant browser. It doesn't have to be Mozilla.

If you want to support legacy browsers, then write a page in HTML 3 and no CSS. That is fine with me. You are still writing a standards compliant site, you are just going with much much older standards. I would hope that once a standard has been a standard for four years that it is old enough to be understood.

There is a practice which bothers me, and I wish I could find an example to demonstrate it. I see it from time to time. Catering to the lowest common demoninator. You act like your entire audience is as stupid as the most stupid member. You insult the collective intelligence of your audience. I can't stand that practice, it makes no sense. All you are doing is promoting stupidity and you driving away those members of your audience that can actually think for themselves.

You shouldn't do that. You shouldn't cater to the lowest common denominator. You should set an even target. People are smart enough to rise to the level you set. Your audience as a whole will get smarter.

As to actually selling something. People have proven time and again that they are stupid. They will repeatedly buy inferior products and exorbatant prices. They will repeatedly be duped into the dumbest of schemes, of advertising programs.

There are people who honestly think that Windows has to be better than Linux because you pay for Windows. How can anything free be good? And Windows has to be good because so many people are using it. If it was so bad, why would so many people use it. I don't know.

I am beating a dead horse, bringing up these topics again, but...

The VHS was inferior to the BetaMax. But people bought the VHS. There are reasons, sure. But this proves that just because everyone has something, doesn't mean it is really that good.

Millions of soccer moms who are in desperate need of a minivan buy sport utilities just because they are wanting a status symbol. Millions of Americans spend entirely too much money on "fashoinable" clothes that are really just generic articles with the name of a designer boldly stenciled on it. These jeans are no different that those jeans, and this sweater is no different than that sweater, but once we put a big brand on it, it becomes a status symbol.

People prove over and over again that they are inheritedly stupid.

Anyway, I could keep going, but the point is, if you treat your audience like idiots, then that's what they will be. I have no desire to cater to that.

[CiberTHuG]

Originally posted by progressive
Maybe they should have made their sites look best in NN6 and
not cater for IE so that people with IE wouldn't be able to find
the download NN6 button therfore no stupid people would be
able to download there slightly more compliant browser.


Netscape's site is such crap. Are they making web browsers and servers, or are they a content provider? If I wanted to read the news, I'd go to a news site. If i wanted to buy clothes, I'd go to a retail site. If I want a browser...?

[JoshT]

Originally posted by CiberTHuG


Netscape's site is such crap. Are they making web browsers and servers, or are they a content provider? If I wanted to read the news, I'd go to a news site. If i wanted to buy clothes, I'd go to a retail site. If I want a browser...?

Well, I suppose if their giving the main product away for free, they have to make money somehow...



And I see a big difference between writing code that will work on a handful of existing browsers and writing code that'll work on all future browsers.

And people misunderstand what a UA is - it's not just a web browser running a GUI on a PC, it's anything that'll request information on behalf of a user.

[CiberTHuG]

Originally posted by JoshT
Well, I suppose if their giving the main product away for free, they have to make money somehow...


I thought they were trying to make money from selling their server. They have to give away the browser to build a market for the server.


And I see a big difference between writing code that will work on a handful of existing browsers and writing code that'll work on all future browsers.


I'm not sure which way this statement was supposed to go, but I agree. I also think the vendors have had plenty of time to comply.

'Course, if you are giving away the browser for free, what is your incentive to make it any good? I can understand MS not putting any energy into IE. I can't blame them for that. And to me, this is a time when Open Source Software (and/or Free Software, which is different) shines.


And people misunderstand what a UA is - it's not just a web browser running a GUI on a PC, it's anything that'll request information on behalf of a user.

Bingo... web enabled cell phones, WAP, PDAs, blind and near-blind accessible, aural. I admit, I haven't gone out of my way to make different style sheets or really use the @media convention. But simply using standard HTML/CSS will help shield you from having to do that to some degree.