cross browser test problems

[Drew]

I used browsertests.org to see how different browsers handle our
website and three browsers displayed an error dialog on the landing
page. Problem is that the screenshots provided by browsertests.org
have poor resolution so I cannot read the error message.

If you have Opera 10, Safari 2.4.1 or MSIE 8.0 would you kindly view
our website and tell me if you get an error dialog and what it says?

http://www.xponentsoftware.com

Thanks

Drew

 

[dorayme]

If you have Opera 10, Safari 2.4.1 or MSIE 8.0 would you kindly view
our website and tell me if you get an error dialog and what it says?

http://www.xponentsoftware.com

See

http://validator.w3.org/

and

http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

Also, btw, see what your page looks like when the user uses bigger text
size than you expect.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

If you have Opera 10, Safari 2.4.1 or MSIE 8.0 would you kindly view
our website and tell me if you get an error dialog and what it says?

Disable JavaScript and poof! No navigation! Bad, bad, bad, bad....


<td id="order" style="text-align: center; width: 16%; color: Navy;"
onclick="MenuRedirect('order')">Order</td>


Links want to be *links*

 

[cwdjrxyz]

I used browsertests.org to see how different browsers handle our
website and three browsers displayed an error dialog on the landing
page. Problem is that the screenshots provided by browsertests.org
have poor resolution so I cannot read the error message.

I do not have the exact browsers you mentioned, so I went to
www.browsershots.org. Someone has used that site so much today on your
page that it will not work for your page more unless you pay. However
it lets you view previous results for many browsers. If you view the
error messages are difficult to read. However if you click on a
report, it is greatly enlarged and easy to read. Go to www.cwdjr.net/Aup/
for screen shots for IE8 _XP and Opera10_XP which are 2 browsers with
error reports you mention. I could not find any offer to check Safari
2.4.1, which is a rather old version. By the way, Opera 10 is a beta
version. If you check Opera for updates from the Opera browser, Opera
9.64 is the most recent update for download. You have to go to the
Opera home page to find out about Opera 10 beta.

If you have Opera 10, Safari 2.4.1 or MSIE 8.0 would you kindly view
our website and tell me if you get an error dialog and what it says?

http://www.xponentsoftware.com

You mention that your program works on Vista. Does it work on 64-bit
Vista? I just bought a program that was supposed to work on Vista, but
would not work on 64-bit Vista, only 32-bit. Fortunately I got a
refund. In these days of more and more demanding media, such as Blu-
ray, much faster PCs, such as some using the Intel Core i7 processor,
are needed to speed up things and allow processing of perhaps up to 8
threads at once. Often much more memory is needed also - I am using 10
GB at present. A 32-bit Windows OS will handle only somewhere between
3 and 4 GB of Memory. You have to use a 64-bit OS to allow use of up
to 24 GB of memory.

 

[Neredbojias]

10 GB at present. A 32-bit Windows OS will handle only somewhere
between 3 and 4 GB of Memory. You have to use a 64-bit OS to allow
use of up to 24 GB of memory.

Does this mean that it is pointless to get *more* than 4GB of memory if
you have a 32-bit Windows OS? (Been thinking of upgrading.)

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Does this mean that it is pointless to get *more* than 4GB of memory if
you have a 32-bit Windows OS? (Been thinking of upgrading.)

Yes, technically a 32-bit OS, (any, not just Windows) cannot address
more than 4GB. Common Usenet question on Ubuntu, "64-bit processor with
32-bit Ubuntu cannot see all my RAM". I am sure you will see similar
posts on any OS list...

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

Yes, technically a 32-bit OS, (any, not just Windows) cannot address
more than 4GB. Common Usenet question on Ubuntu, "64-bit processor with
32-bit Ubuntu cannot see all my RAM". I am sure you will see similar
posts on any OS list...

32-bit Linux can address more than 4GB of memoery, though each
process can only address a maximum of 4GB.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

32-bit Linux can address more than 4GB of memoery, though each
process can only address a maximum of 4GB.

Yes, and no...has not had a very good track record. Similar slight of
hand IBM used segmented memory addresses with offsets...UGH! I've tried
to forget all that!

 

[Drew]

Thanks for all the input. Changes have been implemented so everything
works with straight html and no javascript needed.
Seems this tread has gotten away from the original topic after
cwdjrxyz asked me if our software runs on 64 bit Vista. I have tested
it on 32 bit Vista, but not 64 bit. You are free to download the beta
and try it on 64 bit vista. http://www.xponentsoftware.com. The
program does not need much memory, as explained on the web site.

Drew

 

[cwdjrxyz]

Thanks for all the input. Changes have been implemented so everything
works with straight  html and no javascript needed.
 Seems this tread has gotten away from the original topic after
cwdjrxyz asked me if our software runs on 64 bit Vista. I have tested
it on 32 bit Vista, but not 64 bit. You are free to download the beta
and try it on 64 bit vista.http://www.xponentsoftware.com. The
program does not need much memory, as explained on the web site.

I downloaded and installed your 2.1.5 beta program using a 64-bit
Microsoft Vista OS. There were no problems in downloading, and the
program screen that comes up looks normal. I have not tried to use the
program, as I do not have any XML applications that would need it at
this time and do not have the time to set up an XML application just
to test this program. However many programs that will not work on 64-
bit Vista will not even open properly after you download them.

 

[Drew]

Thank you. I should add a couple xml files for downloading.

 

[Neredbojias]

Yes, technically a 32-bit OS, (any, not just Windows) cannot address
more than 4GB. Common Usenet question on Ubuntu, "64-bit processor
with 32-bit Ubuntu cannot see all my RAM". I am sure you will see
similar posts on any OS list...

Mmm, uh huh, I think I remember something now. Had access to a 10GB
machine a while back and ended up using most of the excess above 4GB
for a ramdisk. Thanks for the info.

 

[cwdjrxyz]

Mmm, uh huh, I think I remember something now.  Had access to a 10GB
machine a while back and ended up using most of the excess above 4GB
for a ramdisk.  Thanks for the info.

It is very important to have a modern processor if you are going to
take full advantage of a lot of memory on a 64-bit system. It not only
needs to be very fast but also be capable of handling several threads
at the same time. I am using the Core Intel i7. This chip costs from a
few hundred to over a thousand $US depending on the speed. You pay a
lot more for just a little increase in speed, so the basic chip will
do for most people. When you push this processor to the maximum speed
and number of threads being processed, it puts out a lot of heat,
about 130 watts , I believe. Thus it has a huge heat sink and large
fan to cool it. Mine has a special exhaust tube that goes to a grille
on the computer case and 2 other fans to cool other parts of the
computer. There are those who will resort to overclocking and a water
cooler for the chip to make it even faster. Beside the increase in
speed for a single thread, you can run about 8 threads at once,
provided there is enough memory. Of course anything on the web is
child's play for it given the speeds most isps can provide. But at the
same time you can be processing a Blu-ray movie, listening to music,
printing out reports, etc without slowing things down. Some of the
media programs are beginning to take advantage of multiple thread
processing for computers that can do it. Even editing standard DVD
video can be very slow, and Blu-ray is much worse.

 

[Neredbojias]

It is very important to have a modern processor if you are going to
take full advantage of a lot of memory on a 64-bit system. It not
only needs to be very fast but also be capable of handling several
threads at the same time. I am using the Core Intel i7. This chip
costs from a few hundred to over a thousand $US depending on the
speed. You pay a lot more for just a little increase in speed, so the
basic chip will do for most people. When you push this processor to
the maximum speed and number of threads being processed, it puts out
a lot of heat, about 130 watts , I believe. Thus it has a huge heat
sink and large fan to cool it. Mine has a special exhaust tube that
goes to a grille on the computer case and 2 other fans to cool other
parts of the computer. There are those who will resort to
overclocking and a water cooler for the chip to make it even faster.
Beside the increase in speed for a single thread, you can run about 8
threads at once, provided there is enough memory. Of course anything
on the web is child's play for it given the speeds most isps can
provide. But at the same time you can be processing a Blu-ray movie,
listening to music, printing out reports, etc without slowing things
down. Some of the media programs are beginning to take advantage of
multiple thread processing for computers that can do it. Even editing
standard DVD video can be very slow, and Blu-ray is much worse.

Yes, I asked my question with an eye to upgrading. Actually, I'm ready
to upgrade now but this has to be the *worst* time in history to do it.
Vista sucks (I refuse to get that POS) and it's like impossible to
find a high-end with Xp on it anymore. The good news is that Windows 7
has been released to OEMs and will be available generally in October so
we should be seeing it on machines fairly soon. Of course there's no
guarentee that Windows 7 will be too good, either, but one has to
hope... What kills me the most is that some progs I frequently deal
with don't operate (yet) in 64-bit Vista OSs at all. So much for
technology. To be realistic about it, I'll probably be on the ol'
32-bit box for quite some time yet.

 

[Doug Miller]

Vista sucks (I refuse to get that POS) and it's like impossible to
find a high-end with Xp on it anymore. [/QUOTE]

Oh, come on. Vista's not *that* bad. I bought a laptop almost a year ago,
pre-loaded with Vista Home Premium. Sure, I'd rather have had XP Pro, and I
would never advise anyone who's already running XP Pro to switch to Vista --
but I haven't been nearly unhappy enough with Vista to even consider switching
to XP. Too much hassle for not nearly enough benefit.

And it's waaay better than Win2K or Win98.

The good news is that Windows 7
has been released to OEMs and will be available generally in October so
we should be seeing it on machines fairly soon. Of course there's no
guarentee that Windows 7 will be too good, either, but one has to
hope...

Hope may be all you have... IMO, installing the *first* release of *any* MS OS
is asking for trouble.

 

[David Segall]

Yes, I asked my question with an eye to upgrading. Actually, I'm ready
to upgrade now but this has to be the *worst* time in history to do it.
Vista sucks (I refuse to get that POS) and it's like impossible to
find a high-end with Xp on it anymore. The good news is that Windows 7
has been released to OEMs and will be available generally in October so
we should be seeing it on machines fairly soon.

You can have the Windows 7 Release Candidate now if you want it and
you don't have to pay for it until February 28, 2010
<http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/get/download.aspx>. You
have to download it before August 20, 2009. I believe that it is
already better than Vista and the price is right.

 

[Neredbojias]

Oh, come on. Vista's not *that* bad. I bought a laptop almost a year
ago, pre-loaded with Vista Home Premium. Sure, I'd rather have had XP
Pro, and I would never advise anyone who's already running XP Pro to
switch to Vista -- but I haven't been nearly unhappy enough with
Vista to even consider switching to XP. Too much hassle for not
nearly enough benefit.

Well, maybe, and I probably wouldn't switch back, either, but the
"programming" I now do is well over 50% of stuff that apparently
doesn't work on Vista 64-bit. I have what I think is a great page at:

http://www.neredbojias.org/pv1.html

It's html but appended with Flash "modules" and according to a message
from Adobe I read in some tech page, Flash doesn't work with Vista-64
yet. Neither do other programs I sometimes use. True, this may not be
*all* MS's fault, but judging by their history and from what I myself
have seen of their "expertise", they're culpable as hell.

And it's waaay better than Win2K or Win98.

Mmm, I dunno, I thought Win98 se was pretty good, actually. I was
quantum levels better than Win95, another OS I never personally owned
or had on my own machines.

Hope may be all you have... IMO, installing the *first* release of
*any* MS OS is asking for trouble.

Uh, yah, dad ist true and I know it qvite vell. Ergo, I may not be
upgrading for a good spell yet.

 

[Neredbojias]

You can have the Windows 7 Release Candidate now if you want it and
you don't have to pay for it until February 28, 2010
<http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/get/download.aspx>. You
have to download it before August 20, 2009. I believe that it is
already better than Vista and the price is right.

Thanks for the info but I usually don't go for that pre-release stuff
unless it's something fairly minor. Perhaps if I had 3 or 4 machines
active sitting on a desk somewhere I might but switching is kind of a
pain for me right now for various reasons and the machine I currently
use 90%+ of the time is just right for testing "mainstream" stuff, etc.
And besides the "spare" machine, I'd need lots of time to futz with a
new OS which is a big hah hah.

 

[freemont]

Vista sucks (I refuse to get that POS) and it's like impossible to find
a high-end with Xp on it anymore. The good news is that Windows 7 has
been released to OEMs and will be available generally in October so we
should be seeing it on machines fairly soon. Of course there's no
guarentee that Windows 7 will be too good, either, but one has to
hope... What kills me the most is that some progs I frequently deal with
don't operate (yet) in 64-bit Vista OSs at all. So much for technology.
To be realistic about it, I'll probably be on the ol' 32-bit box for
quite some time yet.

Vista's gotten a bad rap, but it's not bad. In fact, overall it's an
improvement.

Look, I'm a Linux user and would not pay for an OS, nor would I use
Windows as my primary OS, nor am I a fan of Microsoft. But I still have
to deal with Vista sometimes and Windows daily, and believe me, all the
whining that's gone on is rubbish. As Windows OSes go, Vista is a step
forward. Recall all the bitching that went on when XP was released? It
was mostly coming from the same place as this bitching about Vista -
people trying to run a new OS on underpowered machines. Also with XP
there were people trying to run legacy, security-ignorant apps on
security-enabled XP. (And of course people who are going to trash
anything MS does.) There was also bitching about driver availability for
Vista, but vendors were lazy as hell about creating drivers for the Vista
kernel/architecture, which is inherently more secure and stable than
XP's. So I advise not to be too hard on Vista/7. Certainly don't avoid
buying because of it. You can do what I did when I bought a new comp last
October - immediately pop a new hdd in and install Mandriva.

Anyway. As to your concerns above: Remember that you don't have to wait
for Win 7 to be released; vendors are selling machines now with Vista
loaded but with a free upgrade to 7 upon release. So you get two OSes for
the price of one. ;-) You can even dual-boot them if you're so inclined.

Vista 64-bit runs Flash fine. No problems there. As to running legacy
apps, Win 7 will include an XP emulator if all else fails to run or
install a program.

HTH