|
|
|
re: Still think your browser isn't obsolete?
Wednesday, March 3, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Posted by Arminius
(334 messages posted)
"In order to view this effect, you are required to have WebKit browsers like Safari
and Chrome ( very sorry for the users of Internet Explorer )"
They leave Opera and Firefox out in the cold too catering only to the geek elite.
Reminds me of Quadrophonic sound in the 1970's, or mp3PRO in more recent years, they
were never widely accepted because of their exclusivity.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Still think your browser isn't obsolete?
Wednesday, March 3, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Posted by gewg_
(4444 messages posted)
Arminius wrote:
|"In order to view this effect, you are required to have WebKit browsers
|like Safari and Chrome ( very sorry for the users of Internet Explorer )"
|
|They leave Opera and Firefox out in the cold too catering only to the geek elite.
|
No, you missed the entire point. Those browsers left THEMSELVES out in the cold.
Unlike the old Browser Wars days
when the Big 2 would put whatever feature they wanted into their browsers
and you would see pages with a **Best viewed with ______** note,
that page uses regular old CSS3 tags.
The CSS3 standard is published and all browsers are expected to be compliant.
The point is that the other (non-WebKit) browsers
don't implement the CSS3 specification properly--if at all--
so that page is very much like the Acid2 and Acid3 tests
(which also point out deficiencies in standards-compliance in some browsers).
|Reminds me of Quadrophonic sound in the 1970's,
|or mp3PRO in more recent years,
|they were never widely accepted because of their exclusivity.
|
Windoze guys have a real problem understanding the concept of standards.[1]
As a rule, when M$ does something there is an existing standard and M$ knows it
but M$ chooses to ignore it--usually with the purpose of trying to break standards.
It really is shameful behavior.
Windoze guys fail to see M$'s attempts to break standards and interoperability
as the negative things they are.
They also fail to blame M$ for its sloth/unwillingness to keep up with the pace.
...or is it simply MS's **inability** to keep up??
Internet Exploder held back the Web for years.
If it wasn't for (Free Software) Mozilla, we'd still have the stagnant Web of 2001.
Now there are even more players in the game
and the oldtimers are going to have to get out their A game or get off the field.
...and don't expect any of them to support Win9x--especially not M$.
The new pacesetters do support Linux
and there are versions of Linux which will run on your Win9x-era box.
I also looked and neither Google Frame nor Chrome is supported under W2k.
Opera had better get on the stick with their CSS3 support
if they want to appease the folks still clinging to pre-XP Windoze; same with Mozilla.
Those appear to be the only options left for those boxes/users.
[1] ...and the biggest problem with Quad Sound
was that each maker had his own way of doing it.[2]
(Remember the recent HD-DVD / Blu-ray squabble? Same deal.)
That is NOT the case with the CSS-rich page.
[2] Most folks also found they wouldn't get much bang for the buck.
(Most folks don't claim to have Golden Ears.)
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Still think your browser isn't obsolete?
Thursday, March 4, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Posted by Arminius
(334 messages posted)
And all this new stuff is supposed to be a good thing?
Once the novelty has worn off and the oohs and aahs have stopped it amounts to nothing
more than frivolous web page bloat. Some web pages are bloated enough as it is these
days yet web developers devise new code to keep adding more.
Just because more and more people have faster and faster internet connections doesn't
give web developers the green light eat up my bandwidth with more of their crap.
I prefer the KISS method, Keep It Simple Stupid.
If this is the kind of web development Microsoft held back for a decade then they
deserve a medal for doing so.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Still think your browser isn't obsolete?
Thursday, March 4, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Posted by gewg_
(4444 messages posted)
Arminius wrote:
|And all this new stuff is supposed to be a good thing?
|
Yup.
Do you ever run anything that requires ActiveX?
If so, you've already drunk the Kool-Aid.
The difference here is that ActiveX is M$-only
and CSS/JavaScript/HTML5 is what the Internet was **supposed** to be:
The same code Just Works(tm) no matter what software you use
(unless you use software that your vendor refuses to update).
|Once the novelty has worn off and the oohs and aahs have stopped
|it amounts to nothing more than frivolous web page bloat.
|
Again: That is thinking straight out of 2001. This is NOT about "pages".
|Some web pages are bloated enough as it is these days
|yet web developers devise new code to keep adding more.
|
Yes, tech can get abused simply for the Gee Whiz factor[1]
but you're missing the BIG point.
Google's dropping IE6 support was the first serious shot fired in this round.
It's about ancient, non-conforming stuff that won't accomplish the tasks.
It's NOT about (static) "pages"[2]; it's about apps.
http://google.com/search?q=define:Cloud-Computing
http://google.com/search?q=define:Web-2.0
|Just because more and more people have faster and faster internet connections
|doesn't give web developers the green light eat up my bandwidth
|with more of their crap.
|
If you were using a modern browser with modern features,
you'd realize that it isn't 2001 any more.
You can weed out all the junk that you don't want to waste bandwidth on
(not to mention not giving your IP address
to idiots who you don't want to know that you even exist)
http://google.com/search?q=define:AdBlock-Plus
http://google.com/search?q=define:NoScript
http://google.com/search?q=define:FlashBlock
(NoScript makes FlashBlock obsolete.)
or don't want to waste screen space on.
http://google.com/search?q=define:Greasemonkey
http://google.com/search?q=Stylish+extension
http://google.com/search?q=inurl:userscripts.org/scripts/show
That is all Gecko stuff.
Opera does some of that.
Chrome does some tricks too
--but the browser from Google (an *ad* company) DOESN'T *block* anything,
the extensions for their stuff **hides** it on your screen _after_ it is downloaded
(and after your IP address is revealed).[3]
|If this is the kind of web development Microsoft held back for a decade
|then they deserve a medal for doing so.
|
Typical clueless M$ fanboy
who hasn't done his homework and doesn't know his options. 8-(
Just as Solitare is not necessary to have on your computer
(it's simply a useful tool to get a newbie familiar with the use of a mouse),
[1]these gimmick pages are to show you
what is possible **if** you have an up-to-date browser.
[2] Indeed, with portable devices becoming a huge factor,
least-common-denominator pagefeeds are becoming ever more important.
(Some sites have separate pages specifically for phones/handhelds.)
[3] The reason many folks haven't switched to Chrome
is because there isn't yet an AdBlock extension for it.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Still think your browser isn't obsolete?
Thursday, March 4, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Posted by Arminius
(334 messages posted)
gewg wrote:
|[2] Indeed, with portable devices becoming a huge factor,
|least-common-denominator pagefeeds are becoming ever more important.
|(Some sites have separate pages specifically for phones/handhelds.)
|
Yeah ok. I see your point. I don't even bother carrying a cell phone.
To people who line up all night to be among the first to get the latest iPhone I
can see where this would be important.
|Typical clueless M$ fanboy
|who hasn't done his homework and doesn't know his options. 8-(
|
Not really. There is plenty I grumble about when it comes to MS, my complaints aren't
necessarily the same as yours.
For one thing. When MS ends support for a product they should be required BY LAW
to release a service pack which includes all the fixes that were released since the
previous service pack so the customer doesn't have to download 100 or so individual
updates in the event of a complete reinstall.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Still think your browser isn't obsolete?
Thursday, March 4, 2010 at 8:27 pm
Posted by gewg_
(4444 messages posted)
gewg wrote:
||with portable devices becoming a huge factor,
||least-common-denominator pagefeeds are becoming ever more important.
||(Some sites have separate pages specifically for phones/handhelds.)
||
Arminius wrote:
|Yeah ok. I see your point.
|
I don't think so. More below.
|I don't even bother carrying a cell phone.
|
Nor do I. I have sworn off corporations with outrageous business models
and the cartels can eat my shorts.
|To people who line up all night to be among the first to get the latest iPhone
|I can see where this would be important.
|
You missed my point.
These pages don't check to see if you are actually using a handheld.
If all you need is text, you can access these pages with ANY hardware/software.
The pagefeed you get has fewer (no?) graphics and fewer (no?) scripts.
Click anything here for an example:
http://google.com/search?q=site:slashdot.org/palm
An even better trick that I use is to call up the Google Cache of a page
and append &strip=1 to the URL.
If you've clicked a significant number of my links,
you've probably noticed that there are a lot of pages that load really fast
and contain nothing but text.
There can be a latency problem.
Google doesn't put up a Cached link until 24 hours after the page is published,
so you can't use this with e.g. breaking news.
...and sometimes the Cached links are just plain broken. 8-(
||fanboy
||
|There is plenty I grumble about when it comes to MS[...]
|When MS ends support for a product
|they should be required BY LAW to release a service pack
|which includes all the fixes that were released since the previous service pack
|
Dreamer. M$ (like all megacorps) is beyond the law (at least in the USA).
I expect them to get pounded in the EU for their "random" browser choice screen.
Of course, they could glom onto their usual escape tactic:
"Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence."
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Still think your browser isn't obsolete?
Saturday, March 20, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Posted by gewg_
(4444 messages posted)
Arminius wrote:
|And all this new stuff is supposed to be a good thing?
|Once the novelty has worn off and the oohs and aahs have stopped
|it amounts to nothing more than frivolous web page bloat.
|[...]
|I prefer the KISS method, Keep It Simple Stupid.
|
Actually, with a Cascading Style Sheet, you only have to download that *ONCE*.
The style sheet can then be applied to multiple (all?) pages of a Web site.
This *should* be more efficient than (Web 1.0) inline formatting of individual pages
where you have to download all that markup again with each new page.
|If this is the kind of web development Microsoft held back for a decade
|then they deserve a medal for doing so.
|
As I have noted above, Micros~1's dragging its feet on CSS
*may* have made you download many more bits than you otherwise would have.
That reticence on the part of M$
and the subsequent badness for your surfing experience
continues to this day in EVERY online app that M$ has released.
Some early pre-release versions of IE9 make it appear that
M$ is finally seeing the light (as their browser is being left in the dust).
The Browser Choice Screen mandated for Vista 7 by the European Union
has resulted in even larger numbers of people now using non-IE browsers.
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/03/19/1246215&mode=nocomment
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/03/19/231231&mode=nocomment
As I continue to say, when people are *aware* that they actually have choices,
that makes for a better computing experience.
The ever-more-anti-competitve nature of the last decades makes me very angry.
It appears that 2010 may be a serious inflection point in that trend
--if only *outside* the ever-more-insignificant USA.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Still think your browser isn't obsolete?
Friday, March 26, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Posted by gewg_
(4444 messages posted)
Arminius wrote:
|And all this new stuff is supposed to be a good thing?
|
|Once the novelty has worn off and the oohs and aahs have stopped
|it amounts to nothing more than frivolous web page bloat.
|
I was reminded again today why my primary browser is a Gecko-based browser.
I went to a Slashdot page and opened the AdBlock Plus sidebar after the page had
loaded.
It showed there were three ancillary items connected with the HTML page
that I had previously categorized as worth seeing/downloading.
There were TWENTY NINE items that I had already noted
weren't worth wasting bandwidth and/or screen space on.
Picking the right browser for the job can make life less of a drudge
--and **having an OS that supports the right browser for the job** can't be minimized.
...of course, the browser I was using in this instance
*would* have some trouble with the CSS3-heavy page referenced in the OP.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Still think your browser isn't obsolete?
Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Posted by gewg_
(4444 messages posted)
Arminius wrote:
|And all this new stuff is supposed to be a good thing?
|
I was reminded of this thread again today.
Too many people/corporations really abuse their freedom to be jerks.
Some day when your browser/connection will be idle for about an hour
(only a slight exaggeration--maybe),
visit this
page to see what scumbuckets run that place.
If you have a browser with AdBlock Plus,
you can open up the Blockable Items list and take a peek.
I counted 89 items--every one of them complete crap:
self-indulgent graphics & scripts and ads like there was no tomorrow.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Still think your browser isn't obsolete?
Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Posted by Arminius
(334 messages posted)
I have heard people complain they got more ads after they installed Java. Don't know
if that is true but that is the main reason I don't have it installed except for
the old MS Java.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: Still think your browser isn't obsolete?
Tuesday, March 30, 2010 at 11:40 pm
Posted by gewg_
(4444 messages posted)
Arminius wrote:
|I have heard people complain they got more ads after they installed Java.
|
It sounds like they confused Java and JavaScript
--which have nothing to do with each other.
I can't imagine anyone serving up ads via Java;
waiting for the Java engine to crank up would take forever on many folks' boxes.
|Don't know if that is true
|
That sounds like wishful thinking and the placebo effect to me.
Now, a lot of Flash content is triggered via JavaScript;
the tools to intercept that with any granularity are NoScript and/or AdBlock Plus
(which only work in Mozilla browsers).
Opera has something similar to AdBlock.
|but that is the main reason I don't have it installed except for the old MS Java.
|
M$'s "version of Java" is a fiasco. It was a big point in USA vs Microsoft.
M$ wanted everybody (developers) to use ActiveX
--which was even more horribly broken than their "Java".
(M$'s stupid designers NEVER think about security until it's too late).
If you ran into pages that required Java, you'd know.
The machine would bog down while the Java engine loaded.
You should see a coffee cup graphic on those pages until Java has fully loaded.
The *write once, run anywhere* notion was well-intentioned
but in practice it didn't work well. Eventually Flash ate Java's lunch.
In one big context, the HTML5 {video} tag is expected to eat Flash's lunch next.
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
| |
| |
Tip: Use one of the [Reply or follow-up to this message] links above to add a message to this thread
| |
Return to the Windows 98 Discussion Forum
|
|
|
|
