Spyware…

[zoothe]

What about page loading time? IE seems to load pages (especially graphic intensive pages) a lot faster. Another thing I noticed is that it doesn't show some of the html effects I've used on my website (like fade-in/out). Do I have to download a plugin or what? <br><p>[size=small][Edit by zoothe on [TIME]1089664218[/TIME]][/size]

[Tekno-Crystal]

What did you use for fade in/out effect? Javascript or something else? And you probably just need the right plug-in.

[zoothe]

Just an HTML tag.<p><meta http-equiv="Page-Enter" content="BlendTrans(Duration=1)"><br><meta http-equiv="Page-Exit" content="BlendTrans(Duration=1)">

[PSLassic]

<blockquote><i>Originally posted by zoothe</i><p>What about page loading time? IE seems to load pages (especially graphic intensive pages) a lot faster. Another thing I noticed is that it doesn't show some of the html effects I've used on my website (like fade-in/out). Do I have to download a plugin or what? <p>[size=small][Edit by zoothe on [TIME]1089664218[/TIME]][/size]<br></blockquote><p>Pages load much quicker after the first time you view a page. FF <i>is</i> faster than IE. <br>

[Tekno-Crystal]

Meta tags seem to be buggy with alot of browsers (ones like that anyway, and redirecting ones as well). So I'd try and steer clear of those if possible. If not, than oh well, best thing you can really do is to download multiple browsers and test in each one (thats what I do, actually helps to find ALOT of IE bugs).

[Alucard]

Has anyone tried the System Mechanic 4? If you have please give me some feedback and let me know what you think.

[LaconianShot]

<blockquote>Actually, it is true. Because IE is so popular, it imposes its own codes, which aren't standard compliant with the W3C.</blockquote> <br>If you read my entire post, I said that each browser has exclusive code, and I explained why. Netscape has code like that as well. Why repeat what I already said?!

[Benoit]

<blockquote>Okay, so far I like FF, but in Task Manager Processes, it seems to use about 13,000 K more memory than IE uses. Is this normal or is there a way to reduce the usage?</blockquote><br>It's normal.<br>Since Windows 98, IE is part of the system. It uses about the same memory size, but you don't notice it because it's spread over the system.<br> <blockquote>The only problem I've had so far was logging into eBay. It kept coming up with a cookies error, so I used the Secure login and it worked fine. (Before trying that, I did mess with the cookie settings but to no avail).</blockquote><br>Never had a problem. I allow all cookies, but let it ask first before putting one. I allow most from eBay.<br> <blockquote>What about page loading time? IE seems to load pages (especially graphic intensive pages) a lot faster.</blockquote><br>It depends from system to system, but generally, Mozilla/FireFox is faster.<br> <blockquote>Another thing I noticed is that it doesn't show some of the html effects I've used on my website (like fade-in/out). Do I have to download a plugin or what?</blockquote><br>Test your website using the W3 Validator.<br>Either Mozilla doesn't support it yet, or those are non-standard-IE-only codes.<br> <blockquote>If you read my entire post, I said that each browser has exclusive code, and I explained why. Netscape has code like that as well. Why repeat what I already said?!</blockquote><br>In the beginning of the browser wars, IE and Netscape each had a set of exclusive codes. Then the W3C was formed, placing the standards. But to this day, because of its popularity, IE still imposes its own code, while Netscape Navigator and Mozilla don't have exclusive codes, but go by the standards.

[LaconianShot]

Ah, I see. By the way, aren't you on holidays? <br>Anyway, this may interest you...the W3C aren't exactly crazy about frames. Sounds weird, no? Anyway, you can assume as much because of the three different flavors of (X)HTML are Strict, Transitional and Frames. Strict is complete W3C compliant code, Transitional uses deprecated code as well as W3C compliant code, and Frames is set aside for the use of frames. The fact that there isn't a Strict Frames flavor tells you how the W3C must feel about them. Maybe, frames may become deprecated or replaced in the future?

[Tekno-Crystal]

I personally hate frames. They tend to make pages look trashy (no offense, this page looks good, one of the few). Also, frames can screw up things like refreshing, hitting back, etc. depending on how they are implimented into the page. Besides, why use frames when CSS can do the job for you?

[Benoit]

Yes, I'm on holidays, but that doesn't mean that I can't access the Internet on rare occassions. #) <br>I'm on my uncle's PC, performing maintenance stuff. Currently downloading a better anti-virus program than the crappy Norton one.<br>Downside is that this is dial-up, bad for downloading things.<p>To be honest, I don't understand those different flavors. But frames are a bit deprecated these days. The use of inline frames is growing.<br>I don't like frames too much either, the main reason being that because of my low resolution at home (640x480, but I like it), scrollbars always appear. And when they don't, I can't even see the entire site.

[LaconianShot]

I hope you're enjoying your holiday! <br>Anyway, I can't say I like frames much either. If they're done wrong, they make a site look trashy, as Tekno-Crystal said. Too much trouble for me.<br>You don't understand flavors? You put them in your DOCTYPE declaration at the top of your index page. They tell the validator what to grade the site as. For example, you can't declare yourself Strict if you use deprecated code. If you use deprecated code, you'll use Transitional, and if you use frames, then you use the Frames flavor. The flavor won't affect your code, it's just FYI. You don't have to have a DOCTYPE declaration, but it's good etiquette.<br>Your DOCTYPE declaration also tells what version of (X)HTML you're using. <br>

[Tekno-Crystal]

640x480? ~0 You're the only one I know that low. I don't even think I know anyway at 800x600 anymore.<p>But you're right, scrollbars can be a pain, which is why I design all my new sites to fit any resolution from 640x480 and up, and maybe 800x600 and up, depending on images and content.

[SheWren]

My site was tested on Benoit's monitor <br>I still use 800x600 on my old crt monitor (14inches), because 1024x768 is a real pain. I use high resolution only on the TFT monitor.<br>

[Tekno-Crystal]

I always go as high as I can with resolutions, I can't stand tiny resolutions and huge icons. Why is 1024x768 a pain on your CRT? Because it's 14 inches or because (as some CRT's do) it cuts off the corners, or some other reason?<p>And the DOCTYPE may not be needed, but always recommended. Some people have their internet (mobile phones, palm's, etc.) set to only recognize certain DOCTYPE's, because they can only read certain types.