2advanced.com

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tpnovak
we have seen 4 million hits come through and have sustained 50Mb/sec upstream and 50Mb/sec down stream since launch.

---

wow... thats pretty amazing!


i just have one big question really... why have the most processor intensive animation on the main page?

i wouldnt even mind much if it was in a sub section, because then i could choose to avoid it... but it just makes my computer slooow and makes me go :(

aside from that i think the site is very nice, obviously it wont live up to the hype but thats our faults for building it up so much.

(btw i have a celeron 1.2 processor)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tpnovak
Interesting... IE? or Netscape? PC or Mac? Please let me know any pertinent details. Width wise, we do not intend to pop the scrollbars.

---

I was looking at it using good old IE 6 at work. At home, I typically run in 1200x1024, but when I resized it appeared to be fine. I won't be able to give you specifics of my work computer until Monday. I'm sure someone will have given you the exact issue by then, if not, I will post again. Besides, as you know, it's darn near impossible to account for all browser settings and OS's. I only know that in order to fit 800x600 websites on all OS's and all browsers, the site needs to be 787 pixels wide. I don't know the 1024 equivalent off hand.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by avwebmedia
I think you may be out of your league here. I don't see where you are going with this. What about 2Advanced's coding upsets you exactly?

---

What upsets me is that they claim to be the best at web development, yet they don't know how to code in HTML correctly.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by random_fool
It's not webdesign companies, it's the fact that tweeking a website to make it validate usually brings the designers and developers nothing of true value. Yes, w3.org will say it validates. Big deal. How does that pay for the extra few hours of labor? Where's the cost-benefit analysis? It's invisible, and the web is a very visible medium.

---

It is the webdesign companies. They are the ones who hire people who pass a webdesign class and think they can do anything in a markup language they know jack **** about.

Make a website validate brings the world to the designers. If they code properly, then there website will work as the code intended it to work in browsers that render the standards code, which is all of them (IE has pitfalls, they don't know what a standard is at Microsoft). Validating code can make the world of difference. If it is not doen, it only shows the arrogance and the ignorance of the companies who use improper markup.

It doesn't take longer to code validated markup. In fact, you can do it like any website, just actaully LEARN the HTML/XHTML language before using it. It's extremely simple to do. If you need to spend time making a site validate after it's done, then you have problems of your own and I suggest re-learning HTML or XHTML.

If you honestly think the internet is an entirely visable medium, then you are wrong. What about SQL, php, coldfusion, ASP, ect.. ect... the list goes on. All of those work in the background. While what you see is visable (obviously) doesn't mean all the internet is visable.

What about your operating system? You see it all the time, you see all sorts of stuff. But do you see all of the invisable aprts? The millions of lines of code to make it all come together and work? No you don't. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist and everything is visable.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by avwebmedia
I was looking at it using good old IE 6 at work. At home, I typically run in 1200x1024, but when I resized it appeared to be fine. I won't be able to give you specifics of my work computer until Monday. I'm sure someone will have given you the exact issue by then, if not, I will post again. Besides, as you know, it's darn near impossible to account for all browser settings and OS's. I only know that in order to fit 800x600 websites on all OS's and all browsers, the site needs to be 787 pixels wide. I don't know the 1024 equivalent off hand.

---

It is INSANELY easy to make a website fit to any resolution. It's called using percentages and scalling.

Not everything must be an exact pixel, not everything must be duplicated for other resolutions. Hell using EMs is alot better than actaul pixels

Good lord is the server for this forum dying

All the hype and no resonse. This website lacks a lot to be consider a high quality website.

What because its backend with and admin tool and such. Please there are plenty of sites out there that have been doing the same thing and with a way better design. To be honest alot of there portfolio projects is better then this version. Which is pretty bad.

I'm not saying at all that its not a nice experiment of what flash can do but to be considered the "best design company" it's hard to maintain.

The site must have crased at least three times on me. The music feature doesn't seem to be working for me. And the screen resolution is terrible. Not to mention im on dsl and the site takes forever to load, i feel sorry for you 56k modem people. For your viewers not to be able to have a pleasant experience with the standard 800 x 600 res is crazy.

I have seen alot of other sites out there that is off the chain. For this site site to be such hot ****. Keep it real people. Flashy animation and cool transitions has nothing to do with performance.

Damn... what a dissapoinment, this site is utter crap! I am on a 1.3GHz Pentium with 1-mbit connection, and everything is very choppy, this looks like it has been designed by some 12 year old flashkit kiddie. There are tons of bugs, music wont start up again if paused, some pages take hours to load, and the HTML code looks very dirty (i guess they now use MS Frontpage huh..)

The front water-ship animation is very basic and plain, yet somehow it alone freezes up my PC :confused:

I think Tony Novak and company have taken this intellectual property thing a bit to the extreme.

Didn't everyone notice the proliferation of "TM" all over that site??

AUXILIARY PANEL TM
MAINFRAME TM
FEATURE SYSTEM TM
PRESS UPDATES TM
SUBSYSTEM TM

Incredible. So serious they are about not having their work copied, they went and trademarked all these words! I can't build a site with press updates! When I insert a frameset into a page in Dreamweaver, the default id for the main section is "mainFrame". If I publish a site without changing that, am I going to be busted? As if these guys didn't have an easy enough time keeping all the high paying work from us anyway!

Or maybe they wont send the high priced lawyers after us. Maybe they'll just eliminate completely. Better be on the look out for that skinny ninja paintball ski-instructor guy who can't seem to fill out his uniform.

I think it's fairly obvious that these little TM's are just design elements - get over it.

Hehe. I think it's fairly obvious that my post was just a joke - now get over yourself.

of course it was ...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by EF7
The front water-ship animation is very basic and plain, yet somehow it alone freezes up my PC :confused:

---

I dont think the watership animation is basic, or plain...and i want to see you do better. First, you need a new pc...yours is too slow to hang with us.

Quote:

---

Damn... what a dissapoinment, this site is utter crap! I am on a 1.3GHz Pentium with 1-mbit connection, and everything is very choppy, this looks like it has been designed by some 12 year old flashkit kiddie. There are tons of bugs, music wont start up again if paused, some pages take hours to load, and the HTML code looks very dirty (i guess they now use MS Frontpage huh..)

The front water-ship animation is very basic and plain, yet somehow it alone freezes up my PC

---

That's a shame. Get a faster computer. :p just kidding. ;) (Yea, it's pretty processor intensive)


But what I don't get... is how does the HTML look dirty?

Dirty HTML? How so?

And they only have 17 errors before they become 100% valid HTML 4.01 transitional, which is much better than some other websites I've seen.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by optical
I think it's fairly obvious that these little TM's are just design elements - get over it.

---

thast probly how 2A sees it too, but this is a serious matter, could involve lawsuits and legal matters, copywright and trademark laws...



nah i really dunno bout all that, maybe. ;) lol

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kony2003
thast probly how 2A sees it too, but this is a serious matter, could involve lawsuits and legal matters, copywright and trademark laws...



nah i really dunno bout all that, maybe. ;) lol

---

It would be scary if they did.
I use every single one of those words
on my sites... :D

Hey kasracer

So wait.. a standard HTML page, created in dreamweaver, with a simple table, 4 graphics, some javascript and an embedded Flash movie created 17 errors according to w3c.com standards?

I think you should e-mail Macromedia then big fella. Because both Flash and Dreamweaver seem to be out of compliance.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pixelranger
Hey kasracer

So wait.. a standard HTML page, created in dreamweaver, with a simple table, 4 graphics, some javascript and an embedded Flash movie created 17 errors according to w3c.com standards?

I think you should e-mail Macromedia then big fella. Because both Flash and Dreamweaver seem to be out of compliance.

---

hehe :)

btw, is it just me... or are some of the links in the PARTNERs section broken? :(

which is quite topical since the code used to embed flash onto a web page won't even pass XHTML transitional (the recommended standard right now).

Here's a dirty workaround to get it to validate, but it's stupid to go thru all that to validate the page. Someone needs to rejig the damn thing.

This site to me is like the Matrix Reloaded. (I liked that movie by the way). If you think of the movie or the site in context, you might be a little disappointed but it's still quality work. There are a bunch of pretty and new features in both, but both failed to shock and amaze me in the way the previous version once did. In short, both are sequels to amazing and revolutionary works. The sequels, however, did not pave new roads in the way that their predecessors did.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 52oz
This site to me is like the Matrix Reloaded. (I liked that movie by the way). If you think of the movie or the site in context, you might be a little disappointed but it's still quality work. There are a bunch of pretty and new features in both, but both failed to shock and amaze me in the way the previous version once did. In short, both are sequels to amazing and revolutionary works. The sequels, however, did not pave new roads in the way that their predecessors did.

---

I think you hit the nail right on the head.

lol another linkage between matrix reloaded and 2advanced I think hype spoils it you build up too many expectations i think thats one reason why i didnt bother to read this thread before the launch.