Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
This is more for my daughter's benefit. She surfs fansites that have lots of image galleries, mainly JPEG & GIF formats. Just recently she now finds that when she she tries to view the thumbnails nothing happens (mainly GIF). I have checked all IE settings, surfed the net for solutions, tried registry fixes, nothing works (much to my daughter's disgust). I did see at microsoft that there appears to be a known problem with IE6 SP1 similar to ours, but the hotfix is not readily available for download. I am pretty sure the image thing used to be ok even with the SP1 loaded, BIZARRE...
Any advice from anyone would help restore sanity in our household!!!!
Sorry, I don't know how to resolve this problem. I would like to add a comment though... I have several problems with IE SP1... I'm seriously thinking about switching to Netscape for my Windoze workstations... I use Konqueror for my Linux workstations.
Infinite Recursion
0 
Do you mean you can't see the thumbnails, or when you click on thumbnails nothing happens? Do you have a popup killer installed?
This is really a question for the XP forum...We just make websites, we don't know how to work anything more complicated than notepad:-)
My turn to rant on IE...If they wouldn't have bundled/integrated it with the operating system, you could uninstall and reinstall it like any respectable God-fearing program. Instead, pagan microsoft has to make their product SIGNIFICANTLY worse to beat out the competition.
Yes, Microsoft, it worked...You have the most widely used browser. But we will not forget, and vengeance will be ours. Bwa ha ha ha.
-SN
0
Did you try clearing the cache? I find that every now and then I have to this, or IE does strange things..
-source for sites is not viewable.
-trouble with images.things like that.
0
I had the same problem with IE. IE is just a standard browser. It is really not that bad.
Actually, this whole integration with the OS was not quite a sin. True, there are some hooks that should not get their way into kernel space, but that is another argument. Explorer being used as the main (and therefore required) file browser is not a revolutionary idea.
In Gnome you can use Nautilus to browse the filesystem and the Internet. (Could this be integration?) The only difference is that is Linux and nothing except the kernel is required.
In MS's position it was quite logical. Integrated/shared code is efficient, easier to maintain, etc. (The html rendering is done via a dll). You cannot make the browser a module that can be uninstalled and replaced with 3rd party code for obvious reasons (this is not open source, it is a product and some things about it have to work out of the box, without third party interference).
I would recommend Mozilla 1.4. Netscape was based on this (95% after Netscape 6.x). Give it a try at mozilla.org.
0
The fact remains, despite the good points you make ap, if something goes wrong with IE, (but the rest of the machine works), you can't simply uninstall it and reinstall it. You've got to reinstall the OS. Things often do go wrong with IE, so this can be a pain.
I myself use IE, for the same reason everybody else does...Everybody else uses it!
Integrated/shared code is, as mentioned, more efficient and easier to maintain. This doesn't mean it's always the only way to go. Most users, particularly those that have had to reinstall windows at great cost because of some problem with IE, would have gladly paid another $.95 for windows and a few megabytes of hard drive and RAM for the convenience of having IE be a more "standalone" application like Netscape.
I stand by what I said...The world would be a better place if MS would learn that the more you separate operating system and applications, the more maintainable it will be (from technicians' and users' perspectives, not a programmer's)
-SN
0
If you're a web developer, then you'd wish every used IE... not just because so many people use, but because it works better than all the rest.
0
"If you're a web developer, then you'd wish every[one] used IE... because it works better than all the rest."
Try opening and scrolling the html file in this zip (include the stylesheet). Then try it in Mozila.
http://iecrash.tripod.com/stylesheet.zip
It crashes in IE 6.x, but is completely fine in Mozilla 1.4.x.
It's three block elements: one fixed with a fill, one absolute with a fill, and one absolute and transparent (default fill). The elements are on top of one another.
Still a problem as of IE 6.0.2800.xpsp2.x
Mozilla is strange in its complete GUI rendering via Gecko, but crashing is rarely a problem. Crashing because of a stylesheet? At least it could simply not render the element - it uses that as a panacea in other circumstances.
Simply, IE is not an ideal for web developers. Perhaps an expected feature-set and behaviors, but IE is not anything to be wished for.
0
Thats great, so you're part of that 2% that use Mozilla. It would be great if I could force everyone to use the same browser... but I'm not asked to develope a site with Mozilla in mind, I'm only asked to make it work with IE and Netscape. IE has always been easy to work with, and Netscape is a pain in the #*@!
0
You miss (or sidestep) the point. I understand having one browser makes web development easier. But imagine being able to simply have a set of standards, which allow code to display on multiple browsers, perhaps of the user's choice? Ideal, yes. Impossible? Already has happened.
Still efficiency and operability are minor points.
A browser is not the end-all of the Internet. There are open standards that need to be followed in all network-related models to promote the medium, not to mention save everyone time and ensure that a common medium exists.
I am not advocating the death of IE. It is not a bad browser, but it breaks rules which it should be following (ie. standards which make everyone's lives better, including CSS). If IE wants to please developers, the first thing it should work at it is compliance to the standard. Deviation without strict design means that parts of the standard are not standard at all (everyone pays for the lack of standards-compliance).
"It would be great if I could force everyone to use the same browser"
A more important problem arises out of the dominance of IE. That is that standards are twisted to the browser's interpretation, therefore any error or change in the openly designed standard is accepted by the development and user community. This essentially means that implementation choices or (more commonly) errors are dictated by the browser. If we subscribe to the second law of thermodynamics, these changes (being mostly errors) are almost exclusively for the worse.
The reason Netscape has historically been so hard to work with is multifold. Firstly, it always insisted on playing the game of adding various tags for its parser (especially block-level ones), using variants of javascript, and having a codebase that no one could make sense of. That is why it was quickly dropped in favor of Mozilla (Netscape released it as 6.x, 7.x + AOL junk), which has only recently become close to an end-user product.
And I think everyone can agree that a browser should not crash with three overlapping block-level elements. It's not a buffer overflow, it's just formatting code. Everyone should be pushing for standards-compliance.
0
No doubt that AOL got screwed.. but probably deserved it! Netscape owners greatly oversold their capabilities to AOL, but not only did AOL buy into it, they never had any strategy to back it up. I agree that IE makes things tough by not following standards... IE is even behind the curve on the user interface side of things, but unfortunately people dont know enough to go out and try new things. They only know IE and Netscape, and have probably never even heard of Mozilla or Opera.
0  |
 PHP Program Execution
|
Unicode with Visual Fox 8
|
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
