I don't care if it's speech or not. I did not give them permission to send me e-mail, they have no right to use *my* bandwidth *or* my storage space for their crap.
Oh please, the GF2MX is crushed by most games coming out these days. Max Payne crushes my GeForce3 at times, how can a cut-down GF2 possibly perform usably with that game?
I've seen Quake3 on a GeForce2MX, it wasn't pretty. RtCW is pretty unusable on the MX without seriously lowering the options to the point where it looks like something from the Quake2 era.
I *cannot* subscribe to/. because they don't accept Switch.
Any company that wants me to give them money had better make it easy for me to do so. Having to get a new card just to subscribe is something I will not do.
"wouldn't the reason here be that the other application is going to uninstall a core part of my application?" Interesting thought. However, AdAware does not do this automatically. I install AdAware and run it, it tells me what it found and I tell it to remove the crap it found.
However, your software starts installing, and then promptly uninstalled software I want on my machine without even asking me to (I don't count the EULA, since it's legal standing is questionable).
Tell me, how would you like it if MS decided to remove your software when Media Player 9 is installing?
Err...no. Their drivers are backwards compatible, but their cards are not. There are NVIDIA drivers that will not drive a GeForce 4, or any GeForce. I believe only the 10.xx and up will work with a GeForce3 for example.
I'm getting sick of this "SGI contract" thing. There have been SGI people posting on Slashdot who point out its false, yet people still proceed to claim this.
I tell you what, I'll shut up if you can point me to one authoritive source of this claim.
Yeah, the drivers for the Radeon 8500 were flawless at launch, not.
When the Radeon 8500 was launched, the Windows drivers didn't even support Smoothvision, which was a major selling point of the R8500. Oh, let's not forget the Quack3 fiasco, or the poor performance, or the poor stability.
Still, it was better than the XFree drivers at launch, there weren't any. Whereas with the NVIDIA drivers, there are typically official Linux drivers before the card is available.
Yeah, I mean it's not as if there are hundreds of internet radio stations streaming MP3s. And it's not as if the BBC have been experimenting with streaming OGG.
Let's see: IE for the Mac has a completely different code-base to IE for Windows, that's why.
However, with Mozilla, the Javascript engine is identical across platforms, and all JS that will execute on Mozilla for Windows will execute in Mozilla for the Mac.
Huh? If Chimera uses Gecko, then it uses the same javascript engine as Mozilla, which cannot be described as lacking. Either it uses Gecko, or it doesn't, make up your mind.
IE5.5 was not backported from the Mac version. If they did, they certainly broke a lot of it. IE6 I could see, although I doubt it, it's more likely they simply improved the IE5.5 engine.
As for Mozilla being lightning fast, this isn't so. OK, it's not bad at HTML and CSS, but its DOM support is too slow right now. It's complete, but lacks speed, and it's not going to improve much until post1.0.
True, most of my projects did not require me to attract as many people as possible, which is an advantage.
When I first started this tactic, I announced on the mailing list that as webmaster, I would not support Netscape 4 in the new design. There was an initial outcry of "oh, but please support Netscape 4, Mozilla's not there yet", but my responce was "If you're volunteering to add Netscape 4 support, welcome aboard". They shut up.
However, my latest project is to do the new site for the student cinema here at York. Unfortunately, something like 50-75% of the computers on campus only have Netscape 4 installed, and I have to support it. This actually lead me to having a Netscape 4 page and a "notCrappyBrowser()" page for the schedule. I hear the university is trying to migrate away from Netscape 4 over the summer, and I want to be ready to just drop Netscape 4 like a rock if that does happen.
Unfortunately, if Opera gains significant market share, we'll hit the same problems. For all its advantages, Opera's DOM support sucks to the point where doing anything "DHTML" is almost impossible with Opera. Oh well, at least it does a better job with CSS.
Wrong, Mozilla has better standards support than IE5:Mac. Using the very site you linked: http://www.westciv.com.au/style_master/ac ademy/bro wser_support/page_layout.html http://www.westciv. com.au/style_master/academy/bro wser_support/selectors.html http://www.westciv.co m.au/style_master/academy/bro wser_support/text.html http://www.westciv.com.au/ style_master/academy/bro wser_support/page_layout.html
In fact, damn near all of the pages show Netscape 6.0 beating IE5:Mac. Since Mozilla, in the time since NS6.0, has gone from 0.6 to 1.0, it has improved a lot, and thereforce is likely to beat IE5:Mac even more.
I know exactly why it doesn't work, crappy browser detection, and maybe a reliance on document.all. Here:
Konqueror3 would work because it implements document.all, so it would be identified as IE4. However, Mozilla supports neither document.all or document.layers, and thus their site disables events.
Ye olde days of Netscape and IE version 4 are thankfully behind us, to a large extent. Mozilla and IE6 are quite good with standards compliance, Konqueror isn't bad, but Opera sucks for DOM, so I just ignore it:)
Anyway, if you can get away with not supporting Netscape 4, you'll find developing sites that look good in all browsers a lot easier. I have to support Netscape 4 in my latest project because the main user-base (The people using campus computers to access the site) are mostly using Netscape 4 (Due to that being the only installed browser). However, for my other projects, I just say "Sod Netscape 4" and my life becomes much more pleasant.
Mozilla can do fades as well, it's just a matter of setting up a function that increases the opacity of an object (object.style.MozOpacity) and then using setInterval to call the function periodically. Once the opacity reaches 1.0 you use clearInterval.
The major problem I hit with this is how processor intensive it is. This is due to 2 things: 1) Mozilla's DOM engine's not exactly speedy at the moment 2) It doesn't use any hardware acceleration. Judging by IE's syntax, it would appear to use DirectX to implement these things, which is probably a smart idea.
AOL actively block clients attempting to be compatible, but I haven't seen Microsoft go out of their way to block clients as far as I can tell. There was a time when Everybuddy was blocked, but I think that was due to a change in protocol, not because they were trying to block anyone out.
Slashdot Mirror
What's your framerate?
I don't care if it's speech or not. I did not give them permission to send me e-mail, they have no right to use *my* bandwidth *or* my storage space for their crap.
Oh please, the GF2MX is crushed by most games coming out these days. Max Payne crushes my GeForce3 at times, how can a cut-down GF2 possibly perform usably with that game?
I've seen Quake3 on a GeForce2MX, it wasn't pretty. RtCW is pretty unusable on the MX without seriously lowering the options to the point where it looks like something from the Quake2 era.
Opera's CSS support is not that good. OK, it's not bad, but it's also nothing to shout from the rooftops about.
Now, let's talk about DOM. Oh wait, Opera's DOM support is weaker than IE4's
A couple of days ago, when Counterstrike 1.4 came out, the wait time was more like 6 hours. Luckily I found a mirror of the file on Jolt.
You might want to check out UT2003.
I *cannot* subscribe to /. because they don't accept Switch.
Any company that wants me to give them money had better make it easy for me to do so. Having to get a new card just to subscribe is something I will not do.
"wouldn't the reason here be that the other application is going to uninstall a core part of my application?"
Interesting thought. However, AdAware does not do this automatically. I install AdAware and run it, it tells me what it found and I tell it to remove the crap it found.
However, your software starts installing, and then promptly uninstalled software I want on my machine without even asking me to (I don't count the EULA, since it's legal standing is questionable).
Tell me, how would you like it if MS decided to remove your software when Media Player 9 is installing?
Err...no. Their drivers are backwards compatible, but their cards are not. There are NVIDIA drivers that will not drive a GeForce 4, or any GeForce. I believe only the 10.xx and up will work with a GeForce3 for example.
I'm getting sick of this "SGI contract" thing. There have been SGI people posting on Slashdot who point out its false, yet people still proceed to claim this.
I tell you what, I'll shut up if you can point me to one authoritive source of this claim.
Yeah, the drivers for the Radeon 8500 were flawless at launch, not.
When the Radeon 8500 was launched, the Windows drivers didn't even support Smoothvision, which was a major selling point of the R8500. Oh, let's not forget the Quack3 fiasco, or the poor performance, or the poor stability.
Still, it was better than the XFree drivers at launch, there weren't any. Whereas with the NVIDIA drivers, there are typically official Linux drivers before the card is available.
Yeah, I mean it's not as if there are hundreds of internet radio stations streaming MP3s. And it's not as if the BBC have been experimenting with streaming OGG.
Let's see:
IE for the Mac has a completely different code-base to IE for Windows, that's why.
However, with Mozilla, the Javascript engine is identical across platforms, and all JS that will execute on Mozilla for Windows will execute in Mozilla for the Mac.
Huh? If Chimera uses Gecko, then it uses the same javascript engine as Mozilla, which cannot be described as lacking. Either it uses Gecko, or it doesn't, make up your mind.
You have to be careful in these situations, since it seems people are developing the attitude of "we had to destroy the village to save the village".
IE5.5 was not backported from the Mac version. If they did, they certainly broke a lot of it. IE6 I could see, although I doubt it, it's more likely they simply improved the IE5.5 engine.
As for Mozilla being lightning fast, this isn't so. OK, it's not bad at HTML and CSS, but its DOM support is too slow right now. It's complete, but lacks speed, and it's not going to improve much until post1.0.
Isn't that somewhat akin to the great firewall of China?
True, most of my projects did not require me to attract as many people as possible, which is an advantage.
When I first started this tactic, I announced on the mailing list that as webmaster, I would not support Netscape 4 in the new design. There was an initial outcry of "oh, but please support Netscape 4, Mozilla's not there yet", but my responce was "If you're volunteering to add Netscape 4 support, welcome aboard". They shut up.
However, my latest project is to do the new site for the student cinema here at York. Unfortunately, something like 50-75% of the computers on campus only have Netscape 4 installed, and I have to support it. This actually lead me to having a Netscape 4 page and a "notCrappyBrowser()" page for the schedule. I hear the university is trying to migrate away from Netscape 4 over the summer, and I want to be ready to just drop Netscape 4 like a rock if that does happen.
Unfortunately, if Opera gains significant market share, we'll hit the same problems. For all its advantages, Opera's DOM support sucks to the point where doing anything "DHTML" is almost impossible with Opera. Oh well, at least it does a better job with CSS.
Argh, the Javascript was knocked out of that post:
IE4 = (document.all);
NN4 = (document.layers);
ver4 = (IE4 || NN4);
isMac = (navigator.appVersion.indexOf("Mac") != -1);
isMenu = (IE4 || (NN4 && !isMac));
NavName = "";
var checkForms = 1;
function Show(){return};
function Hide(){return};
function LoadMenus(){return};
if (!ver4) event = null;
Wrong, Mozilla has better standards support than IE5:Mac. Using the very site you linked:c ademy/bro wser_support/page_layout.html. com.au/style_master/academy/bro wser_support/selectors.htmlo m.au/style_master/academy/bro wser_support/text.html/ style_master/academy/bro wser_support/page_layout.html
http://www.westciv.com.au/style_master/a
http://www.westciv
http://www.westciv.c
http://www.westciv.com.au
In fact, damn near all of the pages show Netscape 6.0 beating IE5:Mac. Since Mozilla, in the time since NS6.0, has gone from 0.6 to 1.0, it has improved a lot, and thereforce is likely to beat IE5:Mac even more.
And we haven't even looked at DOM support yet...
I know exactly why it doesn't work, crappy browser detection, and maybe a reliance on document.all. Here:
Konqueror3 would work because it implements document.all, so it would be identified as IE4. However, Mozilla supports neither document.all or document.layers, and thus their site disables events.
Ye olde days of Netscape and IE version 4 are thankfully behind us, to a large extent. Mozilla and IE6 are quite good with standards compliance, Konqueror isn't bad, but Opera sucks for DOM, so I just ignore it :)
Anyway, if you can get away with not supporting Netscape 4, you'll find developing sites that look good in all browsers a lot easier. I have to support Netscape 4 in my latest project because the main user-base (The people using campus computers to access the site) are mostly using Netscape 4 (Due to that being the only installed browser). However, for my other projects, I just say "Sod Netscape 4" and my life becomes much more pleasant.
Mozilla can do fades as well, it's just a matter of setting up a function that increases the opacity of an object (object.style.MozOpacity) and then using setInterval to call the function periodically. Once the opacity reaches 1.0 you use clearInterval.
The major problem I hit with this is how processor intensive it is. This is due to 2 things:
1) Mozilla's DOM engine's not exactly speedy at the moment
2) It doesn't use any hardware acceleration. Judging by IE's syntax, it would appear to use DirectX to implement these things, which is probably a smart idea.
AOL actively block clients attempting to be compatible, but I haven't seen Microsoft go out of their way to block clients as far as I can tell. There was a time when Everybuddy was blocked, but I think that was due to a change in protocol, not because they were trying to block anyone out.
Mono is more than a gleam in Miguel's eye thank you. They have a working C# compiler, JIT and interpreter. Oh, and it's self hosting too now.