|
Pike84
Posts: 1398
|
 |
« Reply #20 on: 18 Dec '03 - 08:05 » |
 Quote
|
Yeah, I can't really understand 800x600 on 19". I'm using 1280x1024 on my 19" monitor, and 85hz is well enough too. It could do 100hz, but I can't see any difference, so I figured perhaps it's "less straining" not to take it to the limit  . |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 18 Dec '03 - 08:07 by Pike84 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rah'Dick
XMPlay Support
Posts: 923
|
|
« Reply #21 on: 20 Dec '03 - 19:54 » |
Quote
|
Ultimate geekiness!!
1152x864 @ 72 Hz on a 15'' ViewSonic 15GS!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Olego
Posts: 557
|
|
« Reply #22 on: 22 Dec '03 - 09:02 » |
Quote
|
I tried that on my old 15" once. It was only @60, though... Blah. ~Olego~ |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Torkell
Posts: 1154
|
|
« Reply #23 on: 22 Dec '03 - 12:12 » |
Quote
|
Ultimate geekiness!!
1152x864 @ 72 Hz on a 15'' ViewSonic 15GS!
Sorry, I've got even more geekiness. 1152x864x32 @ 75Hz on a pair of 15" (I think) CRTs - one Sony flatscreen (CPD-E100) and one old Dell (model unknown but detected as PnP). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
velusip
Posts: 37
|
|
« Reply #24 on: 23 Dec '03 - 21:07 » |
Quote
|
I usually work on very small screens and consoles so I can
definitely relate- but I don't complain... so there.
Hehe, but I am seeing more websites do the top only menu
bar and it is definitely working for me.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Torkell
Posts: 1154
|
|
« Reply #25 on: 24 Dec '03 - 12:20 » |
Quote
|
Everyone is saying that frames suck and they're annoying.. Now what exactly is so bad about them? They don't annoy me.
How about frames screwing up the way IE handles the back button - I didn't expect to go back to Yahoo Mail when I was about 4 links deep into this site: typed in forum URL > XMPlay forum > New Topic > Preview > Preview > Preview > (back button) form expired message > (back link) Yahoo Mail (WTF?) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pike84
Posts: 1398
|
|
« Reply #26 on: 24 Dec '03 - 13:05 » |
Quote
|
Ok, that's a reason.. but then again, why use IE  ? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ralesk
Posts: 654
|
|
« Reply #27 on: 24 Dec '03 - 18:05 » |
Quote
|
btw, in my Mozilla, my browsing area is about 800x600 and it's more than fine for about every site I watch. I can understand the crappy handling of frames by browsers, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Torkell
Posts: 1154
|
|
« Reply #28 on: 24 Dec '03 - 19:30 » |
Quote
|
Ok, that's a reason.. but then again, why use IE ? It's on the computer, it's compatabile with the vast majority of sites (especially since a lot of sites are designed *for* IE and don't work well with Netscape/Mozilla/Opera), it's secure enough if you get the settins right, it supports ActiveX controls (used for Flash, QuickTime, Windows Update and a lot of other things). Plus I can't install my own browser at school. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Sebastian_Mares
Guest
|
|
« Reply #29 on: 26 Dec '03 - 18:22 » |
Quote
|
I am a Mozzy user and whenever I press F5 (refresh), Mozzy will take me to the main page (no matter where I am on the site).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tsorovan
Posts: 1244
|
|
« Reply #30 on: 27 Dec '03 - 01:09 » |
Quote
|
Yep, I've been seeing that too, all the time. Doesn't bother me much though, hence why I haven't reported it.
MozillaFirebird 0.7
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ralesk
Posts: 654
|
|
« Reply #31 on: 27 Dec '03 - 04:13 » |
Quote
|
Going to www.un4seen.com opens the last visited middle-frame unless you exited the browser session. As for calling this a bug or a feature, I have yet to decide. Mozilla Firebird too. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Vesh
Posts: 315
|
|
« Reply #32 on: 27 Dec '03 - 18:52 » |
Quote
|
Bug. Bug... bug... bug bug bug. It's annoying: it's a bug. Solution: Dont use frames!  Seriously, the design of this place would be SIMPLE compared to most sites if it were flat. Not even Rupert Thungfwaller of Pochunk Hollow Road, Tennessee on his 9500 baud [lost 100 in the war of communist aggression (aka, tha fight with that damn hippy across the road)] external 'mo-dim' would have a problem with the speed of this site if it were includes-based and non-framed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pike84
Posts: 1398
|
|
« Reply #33 on: 27 Dec '03 - 19:29 » |
Quote
|
Bah, I like the design of this site. I'm totally cool with the frames, no problems whatsoever here. Don't change it, I say ! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Olego
Posts: 557
|
|
« Reply #34 on: 29 Dec '03 - 03:54 » |
Quote
|
Not even Rupert Thungfwaller of Pochunk Hollow Road, Tennessee on his 9500 baud [lost 100 in the war of communist aggression (aka, tha fight with that damn hippy across the road)] external 'mo-dim' would have a problem with the speed of this site if it were includes-based and non-framed.
That must be one of the greatest allegories concerning modems, ever! ~Olego~ |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian @ un4seen
Administrator
Posts: 15270
|
|
« Reply #35 on: 29 Dec '03 - 15:10 » |
Quote
|
How about frames screwing up the way IE handles the back button - I didn't expect to go back to Yahoo Mail when I was about 4 links deep into this site:
typed in forum URL > XMPlay forum > New Topic > Preview > Preview > Preview > (back button) form expired message > (back link) Yahoo Mail (WTF?)
I don't have that problem with IE6 here - "back" goes back to the previous page in the frame. Anyway... I personally think frames work well on the site, for the reasons mentioned in my previous post |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kamnet
Posts: 34
|
|
« Reply #36 on: 31 Dec '03 - 09:06 » |
Quote
|
I feel that this site has one of the most creative, interesting and eye-pleasing frame-based layouts that I've ever seen.
Backwards compatability IMO is for the most part a dumb idea these days. Holding yourself hostage to HTML 3.x/4.x and a dumbed-down CSS set is nonsense. Ignoring the fact that Internet Explorer holds nearly 90% of the browser market is dumb, and that most users are running at least 5.x. If you're still using IE4/NS4, there isn't a word that I can use to describe what I think of you without it resulting in an insult. Yes their later versions may be more bloated but they also RENDER FASTER, and are more up-to-date with technology.
I can see how 800x600 browser windows with full-size tool bars may present a problem. My solution is to simply shrink down the toolbar sizes, shrink down your scrollbar sizes, and bump up the resolution a little. It really sucks that schools and some businesses feel the need to have to lock these down, but a better solution is to complain to their various IS departments than to expect the whole Web to change to suit your archaic needs.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ralesk
Posts: 654
|
|
« Reply #37 on: 31 Dec '03 - 10:18 » |
Quote
|
Granted, the site looks quite good. There are little bugs with frame handling on most browsers, though, and those are out of our reach.
I have no idea what on good Earth you mean with HTML3. It's deprecated, the oldest HTML version one should ever consider is HTML4.01 transitional.
Keep in mind this site has to please its visitors, therefore browser compatibility is important. It is important that it doesn't break into tiny pieces on Explorer or Opera or, say, Konqueror, so I think it's a good idea to keep away from too nifty features, like most of CSS2, translucent PNG images, and so on. This is one of the reasons why people have to keep away from xhtml too, not to mention that Explorer doesn't handle the standard MIME type of xhtml.
I don't support either that IE is so /everywhere/ but what can we do? Show a broken or not-rendered site to 90% of the visitors? That would be insane.
If we are talking about CSS2 and HTML4.01 Transitional, I have to tell you that even IE4 is a quite decent piece of outdated software. NS4 is not and has never been.
If we are talking about any standard more modern, keep in mind that even IE6/Win32 doesn't support CSS2 properly, Opera has serious issues with table backgrounds on occasion, Mozilla has some table column issues, ... should I point out that every browser is crap? One just can't forget about the quirks of browsers and make a style that works in only his favourite one.
Furthermore, if you are not able to (read: not being an arsehole and denying to) update the browser, we would be seriously evil pinheads to break support to you, don't you think? (I still loathe sysadmins who claim NS4 is the newest graphical browser they would ever allow on their system) Same goes to display settings. I for one cannot, may not change anything on my school computers in that regard. And it pisses me off to see teeny-tiny letters that are totally unreadable without even the minimal anti-aliasing that is possible without this CoolType thing. And believe me, there is no use at whining at some of those arseholes who administer these school machines. Been there done that.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
kamnet
Posts: 34
|
|
« Reply #38 on: 14 Feb '04 - 10:33 » |
Quote
|
So why punish Ian & co. because a) you can't change your work settings and b) your spending time on a website instead of working?
If your worksite is that drastically locked down, the problem isn't with the Un4Seen Developments Web site.
Yes, yes, every browser sucks - so you can either try to play for the middle and eventually be thrown into using very basic HTML in an attempt to try to please all the people all the time (and then listen to gripes about how the site looks plain and boring), or you can shoot for the browser that has the biggest market share. There's no middle ground, there's no negotiation of any kind available. It's a one-or-the-other proposition that ultimately has no winner - so why not go with the solution that suits the site owner the best? After all, this Web site is a reflection of THEIR personality, style, and what they want to represent. Unfortunately, whichever choice you make, you're going to find somebody, somewhere who will be put off by it. *shrugs* That's one of those situations where you just have to say "Dealwiddit (TM)".
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rah'Dick
XMPlay Support
Posts: 923
|
|
« Reply #39 on: 14 Feb '04 - 15:32 » |
Quote
|
*thumbs up*
May I quote you two on another forum?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
