A Flash Developer Resource Site

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 76 of 76

Thread: netscape browser sucks big time!!!!

  1. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Posts
    5,087
    7% of all net users is about 65 Million people...

    Also keep in mind that IE has as much of a user base becuase MS told all the Windows users they had to have it on thier machines when they "intergrated" it. AOL should be more right in saying that you have to use NS for thier ISP than MS should have for saying you have to have IE to use Windows and the MAC OS (They pressured Apple into making it the defualt in thier OS by threatening to stop producing MS Office for MAC if they did not do it.)


    hmm looks better?

    Flash kit looks the same, ZD Net looks the same, CNet loioks the same, the AP page looks the same, The NS Page looks better, The MSN front page looks the same except it doesn't stack the tables, Yahoo looks the same, google looks the same, mozilla.org looks the same, altavista looks the same, bankofamerica looks the same, shutterfly's front page looks the same (They now support NS 6+ although their site says otherwise the website owner admits that page is out of date), where here looks the same, gamepro.com looks the same, MAcromedia.com looks the same, adobe.com looks the same, ati.com looks the same (Even though they claim not to support NS 6+ if you mask your browser so that it says that it is IE ATI.com looks 99% the same as in IE), Ebay looks the same, Amazon.com looks the same...

    In fact over 95% of the sites look the same- Why is that?

    It is becuase a lot of designers conform to the W3C spec especially large corp sites which can't afford to loose even 1 customer and becuase Mozilla has had an intiative called Evangelism in which they asked Mozilla users to submit thier browseing habits and compared the pages... they then pressured the developers to not design to either NS or MSIE but to W3C recs.

    Look if you only want to develope 1 page then follow the W3C recs as almost every browser supports the W3C recs more or less. The is the whole point of a standards body.


    [Edited by johnie on 07-09-2002 at 01:18 AM]

  2. #62
    supervillain gerbick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    undecided.
    Posts
    18,986
    where was Apple pressured?

    at the moment of release, I thought no other browsers were really ready for the MacOS X debut.

    I'm seriously inquiring more than asking. I don't know for sure. care to enlighten though?

  3. #63
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    81
    Congradulations you just named off a lot of huge sites that look good in both. But like your 'ally' in this discussion said, IE is more leniant and 'understands' what the designer is trying to do. In general things look better in IE. Any body can name some sites that look good in both, sure; a five year old could do that. That isn't the point. The point is that if you visit a thousand random sites in a random web user's day; more will look better in IE. Nobody can dispute that,

  4. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,071
    Whoa whoa...If you were referring to me as the "ally", I don't agree at all with your last post.
    I absolutely agree with johnie's last post. There is NO reason you cannot make a site (including yours) look the same in NN and IE. What I said was IE does offer some forgiveness in coding, but that doesn't make it right. My slight beef was that IE does support a few features which designers like to overuse. That didn't mean I like them, and it didn't mean the surfing public likes them either. I only brought that all up to say I would rather see more "creative" features being introduced in general, like IE did when Netscape stopped being the pioneer a few years ago. It was those "browser wars" that created these features, and each one fought to create and support new html and creative design features. Thats has seemingly since stopped, and the "standard" doesn't include a lot of things previously enjoyed by the (now) majority. To correct a previous post of mine, I do agree IE became the popular browser simply because it was shipped with most everyone's machine and OS, and not bcause of these added design features.

    I think it was Ed Mack who summed it up best: If you design it for Netscape or Mozilla, it will most certainly look good in IE as well, and you won't be disappointed.

  5. #65
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    81
    I'm not talking about the little gizmos that IE offers, actually I never mentioned them. And you never really replied to what I was saying. WHat I was saying is; the web looks better through IE. Yes there are some sites that look exactly the same, and a good designer will design them to look the same or similar, but the fact is not everybody does, and the fact is more people have IE (who cares why), and the fact is that more sites are 'designed for IE'. I don't resent Netscape's existance, I'm glad there is competition (all though you are right, lately it doesn't seem like netscape is really pushing new features.) I love that aspect of netscape being the underdog. One thing I hate is when I do simple table alignment and tell a cel to be 40 pixels high, it spazzes out and puts a table height of like 100, and throws everything out of whack. And I definately isn't that I'm 'just coding for IE, and that's why.' I've talked to dozens of people who say that, IE and netscape used to be equally frustrating with complex tables, but slowly IE has learned to make them act more intuitively, whereas NN just hasn't. hope this clears what I'm trying to say ...

  6. #66
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    81
    for example:
    Code:
    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
    <html>
    <head>
    <title>left</title>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
    </head>
    
    <body bgcolor="#EEEDE5" leftmargin="0" topmargin="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0">
    <table width="100%" height="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
      <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
      </tr>
      <tr>
        <td height="40" bgcolor="#CC3300">&nbsp;</td>
      </tr>
    </table>
    </body>
    </html>
    How in the hell can it screw this up? one cel is told to be 40 pixels high and netscape can't handle it. Aparently in netscape talk 40 pixels means 585 pixels (on my resolution). I see that makes a whole lot of sense. You can check it out for yourself: http://www.thickvision.com/test/flas...smallHeight=40 . In IE 40=40 whereas in NN 40=585 and that is why IE is better... any responses? No, seriousely is there something I can do to fix this bc this is for my site. Thanks for your help all you netscape coders...

  7. #67
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    81

    and...

    And just because I know somebody is going to bring up that vallidator.... DONT. All that's 'wrong' with this is that there are no margin widths and heights in 'real' xml. Also there is no such thing as table heights. Don't bring these up because NN is actually doing these things correctly... There is no margin and the table takes up the whole screen like I told it. So if your saying that these atributes are what is causing my problem you are in turn saying "netscape is the worst browser ever"

  8. #68
    Slinky Designs slinky2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,227
    Originally posted by carlosa69
    for example:
    Code:
    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
    <html>
    <head>
    <title>left</title>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
    </head>
    
    <body bgcolor="#EEEDE5" leftmargin="0" topmargin="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0">
    <table width="100%" height="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
      <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
      </tr>
      <tr>
        <td height="40" bgcolor="#CC3300">&nbsp;</td>
      </tr>
    </table>
    </body>
    </html>
    How in the hell can it screw this up? one cel is told to be 40 pixels high and netscape can't handle it. Aparently in netscape talk 40 pixels means 585 pixels (on my resolution). I see that makes a whole lot of sense. You can check it out for yourself: http://www.thickvision.com/test/flas...smallHeight=40 . In IE 40=40 whereas in NN 40=585 and that is why IE is better... any responses? No, seriousely is there something I can do to fix this bc this is for my site. Thanks for your help all you netscape coders...



    ic ant see anything wronf with it , anyone??

  9. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Posts
    5,087
    It doesn't screw it up. I doubled checked it. Both IE 5.5 and NS 7.0 display it the same. As NS 7 is an older version of Moz 1.0 rc1 the most current moz will display it. What version of NS are you testing in?

    K-Meleon does screw it up. K-meleon is based on an older version of Mozilla so NS 6.2 may not display it the same but 7.0 PR1 (Which is based on Moz 1.0 RC1) does display it the same as IE.

    Upgrade to the Newest version of NS or Mozilla and recheck.

    Again your work does not validate by the W3C validator:

    * Line 8, column 35:

    ... <body bgcolor="#EEEDE5" leftmargin="0" topmargin="0" marginw ...
    ^

    Error: there is no attribute "LEFTMARGIN" for this element (in this HTML version)
    * Line 8, column 35:

    ... "#EEEDE5" leftmargin="0" topmargin="0" marginwidth="0" margi ...
    ^

    Error: there is no attribute "TOPMARGIN" for this element (in this HTML version)
    * Line 8, column 35:

    ... rgin="0" topmargin="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0">
    ^

    Error: there is no attribute "MARGINWIDTH" for this element (in this HTML version)
    * Line 8, column 50:

    ... in="0" topmargin="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0">
    ^

    Error: there is no attribute "MARGINHEIGHT" for this element (in this HTML version)
    * Line 9, column 27:

    ... <table width="100%" height="100%"border="0" cellspacing="0" ...
    ^

    Error: there is no attribute "HEIGHT" for this element (in this HTML version)

    This proves that both NS7 and IE will display your non standards compliant code. If anyone with Opera cares to check and report back please do so.





  10. #70
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    81
    maybe your IE is shoddy, I have checked with NN 6.2, Mozilla, Opera, and IE 6. 6 does it correctly with a 40 pixel height; all the NN's display it funky town. Mozilla actually displays it correctly, and Opera displays it the same as NN. By the way, I thought I had both NN 6.2 and 7 but I just realized that when I click on NN 7 it takes me to NN 6. Oh well, I still don't get why NN6 and Opera display it ver strangely, I have to design for netscape 6.2 also you know.

  11. #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Posts
    5,087
    NS 7 is Moz 1.0 RC1. If you have checked in Moz 1.0 then NS 7.0 displays it the same more or less. It displayed as a large white field with a thinish orange ban (about 40 pxls) on the bottom in both.

    I doubt my IE is shoddy. If it is... you better design for it as most people have IE 4-5 and not 6.

    I find it interesting that you dismiss IE 5.5 (more user base than IE 6.0) but then go on about how concerned you are that it displays different from NS 6.2 to 7.0? I would be much more concerned about it not displaying the way I want it in IE 5.5 than NS 6.2.

    Again stick to the W3C recs and look at it then...



  12. #72
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    81

    I don't dismiss it...

    One thing about netscape that I have always loved, (as I have mentioned before) is it gives the feeling that they are trying to help you, whereas microsoft just seems like big corporate giant people. I really want to get IE 5.5 or 4, but it seems that I need a design partnership with Microsoft or something like that before I can actually get it. I have looked all around their site and can't find the bugger. I'm not dismissing it, I just can't find it. NN had their old browsers right there. Oh, and if it is displaying it the same way mozilla is, then it is displaying it correctly and your version of IE isn't shoddy. Thanks,

  13. #73
    Senior Member catbert303's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    11,222

    Re: I don't dismiss it...

    Originally posted by carlosa69
    One thing about netscape that I have always loved, (as I have mentioned before) is it gives the feeling that they are trying to help you, whereas microsoft just seems like big corporate giant people
    and AOL/Time Warner aren't coroporate giant people?

    I use opera quite a lot, I like a lot of the features it offers, like easy searching for words you find on web pages (and mouse gestures are cool ) it also seems netscape have been taking notes...

    The browser also includes two features stolen...er...copied, from Opera: tabbed windows and a one-click search. We love the tabs, which sit just below the menu bar and let you switch among unlimited open Web pages (open too many, though, and the tabs become unreadable). If a Web site includes a custom icon, that icon appears on the tab as well.

    As for the one-click search (wherein Netscape searches the Web for any word on any Web page), perhaps Netscape should have paid more attention to Opera's version. In Opera, you merely double-click any word within a Web page, and a little menu pops up with an option to search the Web for the word you've just selected. In Netscape, however, you must select a word, then right-click to get a similar drop-down menu. Although Netscape adds only one step to the process, we prefer Opera's double-click support. Fortunately, Netscape 7, like Opera, also lets you choose which search engine to use for the Web search. Netscape.com's engine is the default, of course, but it's a cinch to switch to, say, Google. Go to Edit > Preferences > Navigator > Internet Search. In the resulting drop-down search engine list, select the one you want and click OK.
    from
    http://www.cnet.com/software/0-3227883-8-9916554-2.html


  14. #74
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    280
    Originally posted by carlosa69
    ...I have looked all around their site and can't find the bugger. I'm not dismissing it, I just can't find it. NN had their old browsers right there.
    Get most any browser you want right here.

    BT

  15. #75
    Does Mozilla or any of those others support Flash's transparent window?

    IE unfortunately dominates the market, regardless of which one of the others is better. PART of that popularity is based on their monopoly over PC os's, but also, from a programming perspective, IE seems to do more stuff, better - javascript/dhtml-wise.

    So, tell me that Mozilla, Opera, Okra, Oprah, or any of those other browsers support the trasparent window feature, AND support DHTML/javascript the way IE does, and I'll jump ship.

  16. #76
    Senior Member catbert303's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    11,222
    I assume you mean do any of them support them in the same way IE on windows does? On other platforms internet explorer won't do things like transparant flash movies, since it is done using activeX.
    I wouldn't think opera would have too much trouble with a well writen DHTML page, it supports javascript to the ECMA-262 standard along with stylesheets and XHTML. Equally the based mozilla browsers will probably cope fine.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width

HTML5 Development Center