Dumb Stupid Dumb Idiotic Pop Ups!

[Zafarium]

Any of you guys HATE pop-ups? The stupid ones that go POP and say would you like to spend your money :ph34r: ? ggrrr

If any of you guy share my sentiments please post.

[Quark]

Mozilla

'Nuff Said.

[Erigion]

Well said!

Mozilla pwns j00 all.

[WarBlade]

:lol: Except that Mozilla runs on that yucky Nutscrape Gecko engine and can yield some really strange results from a document type declaration in old html. :lol:

Opera 7 rocks though. ;)

And there's always "pop-up stopper" and "pop-up killer" ;)

[Wiccan]

Any of you guys HATE pop-ups?  The stupid ones that go POP and say would you like to spend your money  :ph34r: ? ggrrr

If any of you guy share my sentiments please post.

thast why there is a popup blocker...... to prevent them from hassling you and your fun time on surfing

[concre+e]

Except that Mozilla runs on that yucky Nutscrape Gecko engine and can yield some really strange results from a document type declaration in old html.

Hm.. I'd think meanwhile it's more correct to say Netscape runs on Mozilla's Gecko Engine...

What is it that you're calling "a document type definition in old HTML"?

Anyways, if a document has a certain type definition, it means that it will follow certain standards, and at this moment no other browser interpretes the standards of markup languages as correctly as Mozilla does.
If a document is full of errors and invalid HTML, why have a document type definition? Most of those files were "optimized" :blink: for IE, meaning full of errors that luckily will not show on IE.
So what you call "strange" results are most likely "correct" results.
I've been using the Mozilla Browser for over a year now, and have very rarely come across a site that was impossible to read or just messed up. And thoses kind of pages usually aren't worth it anyway.

Opera 7 is a fine browser as well - finally they implemented DHTML and got rid of a number of rendering bugs. Unfortunately the 7.0 and 7.01 versions tend to crash quite often (depending on your setup - some don't experience any crashes), so as usual I'm waiting for later versions that software. Mouse gestures do rock though, that for sure, and I love the large number of small gadgets like "paste and go" etc.

c+

[WarBlade]

I've never once had any problem with Opera Crashes. A few failures in IE, restricted to window closing operations usually as a result of pop-ups (surprise, surprise).

Nutscrape on the other hand is absolute rubbish IMO and I've found Mozilla to be merely marginally better.



I was looking at LurkerLounge because I had encountered this bug in one of my own websites a while back and happened to chance upon the realization that one of the catalysts was jamming a foreground graffic over a background . . . almost identical situation to Bolty's warrior and Barbarian there. The resulting mess under those two evil browsers basically had me cursing them forever. Not to mention having a 3 pixel margin added to the bottom of every image. :angry:

Blah. I've been finding and fixing all manner of stupid bugs just to make pages fully compatible with Nutscrape. And with what seems about 60% - 80% of Nutscrape bugs repeated in Mozilla, I lost patience with those browsers very quickly. :angry:

[Leshy]

Opera 7 rocks though.  ;)

Never had any real problems with Mozilla myself (other than that it's a beta and thus somewhat prone to crashing).

However, I must agree that Opera 7 definitely has the better features. For popups the option to block unrequested popups is excellent - as it still allows you to open popup windows on a site yourself (such as the skill ones on the Arreat Summit). Mouse gestures are a gift from whatever deity you wish to believe in, and I've already caught myself trying to close EditPlus windows by waving the mouse around :P

And what probably is Opera's best feature is the fact that when it crashes, or is closed off for any reason other than you closing it down manually, it will actually enable you to continue where you left off when it closed - it will automatically reopen all windows you had open \o/

-Leshy
"Reality? That's where they should sell Pizza at the Opera!"

[Taeme]

A good customizable pop-up blocker is proximatron. It does slow your browsing down a little, but in return, you can basically do on the fly modification of websites as they go through your browser. That's pretty neat :)

[smithy]

Opera for me too.

I still use IE just cause it has that nice little icon on the left side of the quick launch bar. BUT.... when I remember to actually use Opera I prefer it greatly to Mozilla.

Smithy

[Quark]

If you've found Mozilla to be bad at rendering, then you obviously hate the W3C. I never had problems with Mozilla's rendering (especially with this site). The only problem I've seen is on some badly-designed boards (likes 7L.com's current clunker) tabs would go bezerk when middle-clicking (open a new tab to link, but with the bug it would also load the link in the current tab). Upgrading Mozilla to 1.3a/1.3b got rid of that, as did later nightlies instead of Phoenix 0.5.

I personally wouldn't use Netscape because it just adds junk, nothing valuable at all. Currently my main browser is Phoenix, a smaller/faster version of Mozilla, but that's only in 0.5 right now and if you don't like nightlies I wouldn't advise that.

I've used Opera before and found it too unstable, it's interface too clunky, and overall too obtuse. I'm sure I'd love the interface if I got used to it - but why? Moz/Phoenix and IE have a near identical interface, so why switch?

Again, any rendering errors are that websites fault for writing bad HTML. And the ones that I've seen haven't been bad/frequent enough to make me wanna switch.

[WarBlade]

Opera for me too.

I still use IE just cause it has that nice little icon on the left side of the quick launch bar.  BUT.... when I remember to actually use Opera I prefer it greatly to Mozilla.

Smithy

Those "nice little icons" are nothing more than shortcuts and you can drag more in beside them. I have both IE and Opera handy there as well as Notepad out of necessity.

[WarBlade]

Again, any rendering errors are that websites fault for writing bad HTML.  And the ones that I've seen haven't been bad/frequent enough to make me wanna switch.

:angry:

And what about all the potential errors that one has to pussyfoot around when scripting HTML in order to make pages compatible with some browser that only a minority would bother to use? I only spend extra time banging my head against the keyboard because I feel that Mac users might like to see my site too.

Webmasters should not have to make up for the deficiencies of crap browsing sofware IMO. :(

[Quark]

But that's exactly it!

IE is complete crap! Microsoft doesn't make the standards, W3C does. Most of that proprietary IE code, I don't want on a website I'm viewing anyway. Junk like blink and marquee, "oh yeah, this'll be cool, let's put this in!" You don't know how much IE code that Mozilla will process that I had to disable in the preferences because it was too damn annoying :angry:

Mozilla doesn't render bad, at all. Anything that looks bad is not Mozilla's fault. How can it be crappy software if anything it does is what the standards say it should do.

This is like arguing that everyone who doesn't use Visual Studio is an idiot because some lazy programmer wants to use Microsoft's proprietary additions. Additions which, by the way, will not work in Borland or GCPP. There are standards committies for a reason. The ones who don't follow the standards are in the wrong.


Check this out:
Complex Spiral Demo

Try that with Moz, IE, and Opera. I'm not sure about the latest Opera, but I know older ones messed that up bad.

[WarBlade]

IE is complete crap because someone working with it dreams up a new feature?

Um. Javascript Style Sheets anyone?

There are standards committies for a reason. The ones who don't follow the standards are in the wrong.

And how many features are commonplace today because someone dreamed up a really good idea that start out as proprietary software and was happily adopted by all? If everyone stuck rigidly to standards, we wouldn't have half the features we use today.

Web development innovations can be like powertools - Incredibly useful, but capable of incredible harm too. Who do blame? The tool maker or the fool who miss-uses the tool? Even W3C standardized features can be used to ugly effect too.

[Quark]

It's not just that though.

And how many features are commonplace today because someone dreamed up a really good idea that start out as proprietary software and was happily adopted by all? If everyone stuck rigidly to standards, we wouldn't have half the features we use today.

Blink and Marquee were, rightly, denied (and yes, I know blink is originally Netscape). "Target=_new" was declared illegal, as there is already "Target=_blank". Yet they're still there, and websites use them even if it destroys access from certain webbrowsers.

I'll admit good things come that were originally proprietary, but that's not even close to the full problem. That example I linked to was pure CSS1, supposedly easy and supposedly supported by every current browser. Yet half of them get it wrong even when they claim support! Now you don't just have features that only users of one webbrowser can use; you also have features that work differently on one thing because a company claims support it doesn't give.

Also, back when I threw up a junk webpage, I was testing out CSS. It worked in IE but not Netscape. Why? Because I was using a proprietary color code which only IE supported. If Microsoft had not put that in, everyone would be following the same setup and it would have looked the same no matter the browser. But since IE didn't follow standards, and webmasters didn't bother with checking validity, I learned a method which was considered illegal by standards. Why? The only reason I can think of is MS wanted other browsers to look like crap :angry: . What made it even worse was switching the CSS to the standardized form mucked up the colors in IE, even though IE claimed support for CSS.

And personally I don't even want to bother viewing webpages that use IE stuff and, therefore, break in Mozilla. If a webmaster doesn't want to check accessability to other browsers, then I'll gladly go somewhere else.

[Bolty]

I was looking at LurkerLounge because I had encountered this bug in one of my own websites a while back and happened to chance upon the realization that one of the catalysts was jamming a foreground graffic over a background . . . almost identical situation to Bolty's warrior and Barbarian there. The resulting mess under those two evil browsers basically had me cursing them forever. Not to mention having a 3 pixel margin added to the bottom of every image. :angry:

Any browser that adds pixels where a user doesn't want them should be ignored. I code all my pages pixel-by-pixel, with all pixels accounted for - and then some lame browser goes and adds some? Of course the page goes AWOL! That's pathetic.

Bah, I have nothing else to say - that's just stupid...

-Bolty

[Roland]

Any of you guys HATE pop-ups?  The stupid ones that go POP and say would you like to spend your money  :ph34r: ? ggrrr

If any of you guy share my sentiments please post.

Works wonders for me. And it's free. If you want a copy drop a post, and I'll throw it up on my webspace for download.

[concre+e]

Nutscrape on the other hand is absolute rubbish IMO and I've found Mozilla to be merely marginally better.

If you're talking about NS / Mozilla behaviour, you have to mention the versions. NS 4x is like 8 years old, Mozilla 1.3b just a few weeks. Of course there's different behaviour.

About your example w/ the pic: Mozilla (or whatever you were using for the screenshot) does exactly what's in the code: There's three pictures (the warrior, the logo, the barb) in a table row, they don't fit next to one another once the browser window gets too small, so Moz performes a line break, so all pics will be displayed fully. IE however treats them a some sort of layers, which they aren't, and stacks them when the browser window gets small- and then starts to mess up the following text (links) like this (IE v6):



There's a number of possibilities to construct the code in a correct fashion that will display the LL header as intended and with all browsers, but I won't get into that - it's not my site ;)

Not to mention having a 3 pixel margin added to the bottom of every image

You could use this opportunity to find out more about the difference between block elements and inline elements, and their behaviour in "strict" mode, when there's a specific W3C-URL in the document type definition.
(Short version: As long as you define the pic as an inline element, those pixels will be there, as a block element they won't, or if you just don't use a URL in the DTD. This behavior is correct, and will probably be adapted by a future version of IE. I don't know if Opera does it yet - they will in any case.)

60% - 80% of Nutscrape bugs repeated in Mozilla

You should really check your Mozilla version - everything from Version 1.0 has next to no rendering bugs - a lot less than any other browser there is to date. Maybe you're still using an early alpha version (typically v0.8x or something)
If there's anything to really criticise about Mozilla, it's the speed, but that's another issue.

c+

[Bolty]

There's a number of possibilities to construct the code in a correct fashion that will display the LL header as intended and with all browsers, but I won't get into that - it's not my site ;)

Dude, that's just wrong. :) I suppose it's a little more complex than a simple "nowrap," eh?

The banners (and site) weren't designed with less than 800 pixel width browsers in mind. I dunno, I think I'd rather see it line break and look bad than have a horizontal scroll bar anyway.

-Bolty