# IEWin Rendering Bugs thread



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

There's been some discussion lately about various rendering bugs in IE for Windows. Additionaly, certain members of the forums have tried to insist they're features and not bugs So report your IE bugs here, and also defend why you think they're features

Here's a few to start off with (there's MANY more):

- IE doesn't support 32-bit graphics (PNG-32) properly. It renders the red green and blue channel, but instead of making the full alpha channel the site background, it makes it the file-defined background colour. This is above and beyond annoying. 32-bit images have the ability to change the web. Imagine graphical text and logos, fully anti aliased against the background. Imagine drop shadows on graphics. These are not dreams. These are reality with 32bit graphics. Mozilla, Opera, Konqueror, and IE for MacOS fully and properly render these images TODAY! WebTV (so I hear) at least renders them in an acceptable manner (though trimming the alpha channel to 9 levels due to hardware limitations). Internet Explorer for Windows does not (odd seeing IEMac and WebTV are fine...). Site designers won't take advantage of these incredible graphics until Microsoft decides to support this format. Microsoft has refused to support these images for years. However, they do support them in their (far superiour) MacOS version of IE. The "solution" for the Windows platform is to use the DirectX AlphaImageLoader call. This is far from a solution for four reasons: it's proprietary, it's hard to implement properly, it requires the end user to decrease their security settings, and most of all - it renders the page useless for all other browsers. This is IEWin's biggest bug today.

- IEWin fails to listen to a fixed width in certain elements (marquee for example, the problem that used to exist at DBS Service Desk) if the element doesn't have room to fit (instead of running it off the edge of it's space like it should). Yes, in 99% of cases IE acts the way the developer wants. In this case, the developer wrote bad HTML (they should have used a percentage width for the element). While yes, it will render okay on IEWin (dunno about IEMac), because many site developers only test on IEWin it renders the site (or a portion thereof) useless on any other browser (Hmm, makes me wonder if that's Microsoft's goal ). And what about the other 1% of developers - the ones who, for one reason or another, actually intend to run the element out of the available space. They're SOL in IEWin.

- Finally, IEWin often (always?) ignores a doctype declaration sent by the HTTP server (example - EKB on DBSTalk when it was new). In my example, the server was programmed to send text/plain. A web browser should NOT have rendered the page's HTML code. IEWin did. This is a problem, one, because if you don't do cross-platform testing you'll leave many users unable to view your page. And two, because there are several cases (examples, training sites, etc...) where you'd want a page with HTML rendered as plain text.

Have fun!!!


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

While I presume you are correct about the issues with IEWin, there is a certain Quality to the Quantity of MS. There are many-many-many developers who develop to that 'Standard" of IE and will program accordingly. At the company I last worked at, all development was done to IEWin first and then other browsers were considered. MS may be going off standard, but that take a majority of Corporate Web developers with them, so for practical purposes whatever MS does becomes that Standard for many. Dosen't mean it is right, but that is the reality. And many of the responses by the corporate developers to the items you listed is for the people to switch to IEWin.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Are they really bugs if the browser owns over 90% of the market? Why does this even matter? The other browsers have become irrelevent except in small circles...

James


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

> _Originally posted by James_F _
> *Are they really bugs if the browser owns over 90% of the market? Why does this even matter? The other browsers have become irrelevent except in small circles...
> 
> James *


I agree. Why even worry about it. Web designers don't have the time to try and please everyone.

Zac, I think you need to put yourself is a web developers shoes. They are getting paid to develop web sites aimed at specific customers. If those customers are 99% IE, do you really think they would wasted their time programming for other browsers?

There is no doubt that correctly writing HTML code is a good thing and I am all for it, but there is a point in time when it becomes a waste of time to try and please everyone. As Gcutler said, it may not be right, but it's reality so deal with it.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

But why do I care? I understand you point, but from my standpoint, i get paid a set amount to code a site. Unless the client pays more to make sure it runs on Netscape/Mozilla, I don't even check it. If I code the page correctly IE renders the page correctly. IE supports sloppy code, which IMO is why pages render "incorrectly" in Mozilla/Netscape which is sometime more strict. That said, its not a bug. 

I just can't waste my time with PNG... :shrug:


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Zac,

You really need to get out into the real world and start creating web pages for paying clients. Only then you will understand where James is coming from.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *Remind me to never hire you to make me a web bake That's laziness at it's best. You're going to alienate a large number of web users (more than 10%) because of some simple to correct mistakes in your code? You're not even going to open the page once and see if it works, and if not, make a simple attempt to fix it?*


You are confusing two issues Zac... Unless I get paid to do something I won't waste my time working on it... I have nothing to do about being lazy, if its not in the scope, I don't do it. Out of scope work will kill your bottom line. The fact that the client doesn't care about Netscape is irrelevant to me. If they get complaints, then I'll fix it, after a contract mod. I'm not even going to begin to explain to you why that is important, but trust me it is.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *If they're hiring you to make a web page, then it will, by definition of a web page, work with every browser compliant with current W3C standards Just because they don't say they want it to work with Mozilla is unimportant. It's implied in the definition of "web page". You should check all your HTML is W3C compliant. If it is, Mozilla must work *


Nope... The client almost never cares about W3C, HTML 4.0, Javascript, Java, XML, ASP, PHP, JSP or any other part of the webpage. Its not about some little W3C badge on the webpage. Its about getting their message across without spending too much money. They don't care about Mozilla or Opera or Macintosh. They care about saving money. That is what the internet is about today. There is nothing implied in my scopes of work. Either its written down on paper or we mod the scope with change orders. If you don't do it that way you'll get burned.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *Even if the client doesn't care about it, the W3C is still the regulating body which controls how web pages MUST be made.*


Says who? Its a standards body, not a regulating body.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *P.S., I know it's a pain in the you-know-where to write to W3C. Validating this thread for example results in page after page of violations. Starting with the fact there's no DOCTYPE declaration so it doesn't even know what to validate it against (HTML/4.01 transitional is therefore assumed) *


Look for most of what I do, W3C is irrelevant. I only use HTML to render XML that I create using C#.NET and VB.NET. I work with mostly server side apps to display data on legacy servers. These applications are usually developed for clients internal use so Mozilla/Netscape isnt' even an option. IE on Windows 2000 is usually the OS of choice. This does make it easier for me because I know my target audiance. I don't have to validate anything because I know it will run because of the .NET IDE...


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *Validate almost any page on the Internet. It's really quite funny. *


But they render in my browser perfectly. Why do I care as an end user?

Look, I'm not saying you are incorrect. Its just not important anymore outside of the "college" environment...


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Zac: I work at a Internet Service Provider. Every copy of Windows 95 OSR2 and later comes with Internet Explorer as part of the standard install. When it came to mail clients, Win95OSR2 had Internet Mail, while Win 98 and later come with Outlook Express preinstalled. As for Mac OS8 and later, both Internet Explorer/Outlook Express and Netscape are preinstalled. 

Most of the end users simply don't realize that there is an alternative browser out there. Why spend the two hours downloading an alternative browser when IE already exists on the end user's system.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *Remind me to never hire you to make me a web page ...*


Zac, Especially now it is all about saving $$$. So James gets less money to develop his site, and what is the only way of cutting costs that is acceptable to the average corporate suit. Ignore those not using IEWin is the only way to make the corporate suits happy and to cover James' ass. Working in corporate america is a constant balance between what you know is right and what management is telling you.

I suggest you stick to the Academic world for your first few workplaces where perhaps issues like "Spirit of the Internet" even get a consideration. Because in corporate America it dosen't even penetrate mid management. At the medical supply company I used to work at, they were having pretty good profits (recession proof). Everyone was getting brand new dells, new servers were being added weekly, so the IT department had plenty of budget. But many in the IT department were underpaid, Management didn't care that morale was at 0, their point of view was that anyone could be replaced in 5 minutes so why invest any money in the people. Thats the real world, what is right is rarely done because it should be done, only because they are forced into it.

This is just like the issue you have with Dell being non-standard, but since most of us use Dells in the corporate world and at home, whatever non-standards they have are effectively the new standards we live with.

Yes Zac, with enough years working in the corporate world, one day you can be as bitter and angry as I am


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

This is a fascinating discussion, and I know _nada, zilch, zero_ about web page development.

This thread is about much more than standards, bugs and fixes. It goes to the heart of the debate over universality vs individuality. I think it was Lincoln who said _"You can please *all* of the people some of the time, and *some* of the people all of the time, but you cannot please *all* of the people *all* of the time."_ I think Honest Abe must have had web developers like James in mind. when he uttered those words.

Zac said... _"Commercial websites need to be compatible with all major browsers." (emphasis added)_ Zac, there is only one 'major' browser, IE. Ten-twelve years ago NS had 90% of the browser market and most of us know the history of what happened there. I happen to be a NS loyalist - my way of giving Bill the finger.

As a user, I deal with the few incompatibilities that may arise from using Navigator. For example, I do a lot of on-line banking stuff, and using NS 6.2.2 won't get me past the secure log-in on the home page. So what do I do? I drop back to NS 4.08 and punt. (I won't get into why I haven't upgraded to NS7... yet.) I guess I'm one of faithful few who likes to "dance with the one that brought me", and besides, all the bad guys out there hack at MS's OS, IE and Outlook, not to mention all the holes MS itself creates.

But, to be time-efficient and remain financially viable, commercial website developers like James must _'dance to the tune his clients are playing, and do only the job for which they are paying'_.

In the *real* world, which, BTW, excludes government and academia, IE is the 600 pound gorilla on your doorstep which must be fed, and screw the hungry chimps who are fighting for the crumbs.


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

I believe Microsoft should be forced to do one of two things (lets give them a choice):

1.) Make Mozilla the default browser in Windows.

-or-

2.) Re-Release Windows (including IE) under the GPL.

Somehow I think MS will choose option #1. Microsoft shouldn't be able to use their OS monopoly to enforce a browser monopoly...


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

I was never big fan of IE until IE5 came out and Netscape went to hell. I've tried Opera, Mozilla and Communicator 4.80 and IMO IE beats them all out (I will never go back to a Netscape browser). MS has an excellent set of programmers who develop IE and I have never had any problems with IE. The fact is MS holds the vast majority of marketshare in many categories, and I do like their products (w/exception to FrontPage and WMP) a lot better then their competitions.

I think MS should make it possible to uninstall IE on Windows, but it's their decision on what they want to do.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *I believe Microsoft should be forced to do one of two things (lets give them a choice):
> 
> 1.) Make Mozilla the default browser in Windows.
> ...


Why should they be forced at all? I haven't kept track of the government lawsuit lately, but unless the government lawsuit forces them to, who is going to force them. Only market forces can force MS to do anything (other than the gov't) and what market forces are even close to forcing them to do either???

Again the difference between what is right and what is the real world...


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

So why doesn't someone make a better product? :shrug:


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *gcutler, they need to be sued again. The government suit was a joke. All they ended up having to do is make it so XPSP1 allows you to hide the IE icon and a couple others *


So who is going to sue them this time? Doubt the Gov't is going to try it again? Lawsuits take up lots of people time and money, unless you are expecting a different outcome than the last one, what purpose does it serve. There are lots of issues MS can be sued for, but I would not want my tax dollars used for a lawsuit based on the issues you have posted in this thread. I would try to vote out of office anyone who wasted tax dollars on these issue. Forcing vendors to buy a copy of DOS/Windows for a machine that included another OS (like OS/2 or Linux) is one thing, your issues are another.

Zac, perhaps you should try a "Class Action Lawsuit", but I won't be wasting my time signing up.


----------



## SkiManiac (Nov 12, 2002)

I run Internet explorer, I've had no problems with it at all, I think it's the best browser out there personaly.


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

Hey Ski, when I get a chance (should be within a couple weeks) I'll design a page for you to view in both and I guarantee you'll change your mind about IEWin being the best browser


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *James, there ARE BETTER PRODUCTS. Mozilla (Netscape is based on Mozilla) is the best. Internet Explorer for MacOS isn't nearly as bad. Opera and Konqueror are okay too...*


Opera is a piece of crap! Why do I want a browser I have to either pay for or have ads run across the top? IE runs the best on windows. Yes its because the control the code, but who cares? In 2 years Netscape/Mozilla/Opera will either be dead or have less than 1% of the market. 


> *
> gcutler, Microsoft has built a monopoly with Windows. Personally, I think the government should take it away from them by giving Windows to the public. That's what I'd like to see. But if they don't, they should at least stop Microsoft from using Windows as a carrier for other Microsoft software such as IE and OE. *


Uh why should Microsoft have to give up something that they have spend billions perfecting? Its a monopoly because its the best for millions of users. Its not their fault that Novell killed Word Perfect or AOL killed Netscape. If Word Perfect had handled the move to windows from DOS better, they might not have fallen off the face of the earth.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

_"So why doesn't someone make a better product?"_

It's not a matter of a better browser. Because of MS marketing practices, bundling IE with their already ubiquitous OS, starting with Win95. they decimated Netscape, a browser that once held 80-90% market share. No existing or new browser, no matter how superior to IE, will ever gain a significant market share of the browser market.

Let me put it this way: If an automaker offered you free gas for the life of their cars, would you buy any other brand?

Unless you know and understand the history of Bill Gates and Microsoft, particularly their stranglehold on OEMs, vendors and retailers, you can't fully appreciate how devastatingly oppressive their tactics have been to the spirit of inventiveness, fair competition and free enterprise in America.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> Mozilla (Netscape is based on Mozilla) is the best


Thats in YOUR opinion.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *gcutler, Microsoft has built a monopoly with Windows. Personally, I think the government should take it away from them by giving Windows to the public. That's what I'd like to see. But if they don't, they should at least stop Microsoft from using Windows as a carrier for other Microsoft software such as IE and OE. *


This is still a free country. So unless the Gov't wins a lawsuit AND THE JUDGEMENT IS EQUAL to what you stated, IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. And since the In-Power Presidential and Majority Congressional party tends to believe in less government involvement than their opponents, IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN even stronger. And I believe that the Out-Of power Presidential and Minority Congressional party has voted very similar to the in Party so IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN ever.

Perhaps a few months/years ago it was possible to believe what you want could happen. But for the past few months and the next 2 years, what you want has a 0% chance of ever happening. And I'd even do double or nothing that even with a switch in controlling parties in 2 years it would still have a 0% chance of happening.

I personally would rather my the govt's limited resources going after the bastards that caused 401ks and pension funds to be worth nothing over the past few years. But that is something you will have to become concerned about as time goes on.


----------



## Neil Derryberry (Mar 23, 2002)

> James, there ARE BETTER PRODUCTS.


In your opinion, humble or not. Speaking from the maintenance side of the IT fence, why would I want my people to waste an extra 30 minutes installing another browser on the windows machines when a fully-functional (by business standards) browser is pre-loaded? The answer is that I wouldn't because that costs man-hours, which costs money. On another note, the only real issue you have been able to sucessfully raise is that IE doesn't render some graphics properly. Per your example, I wont' argue because you seem to be correct. However, I could read the word hello in each of your examples, so I don't really care about the color because the message was conveyed. In the corporate world, windows users who even have a web browser are still only a few steps past getting a color monitor, so why should I care whether or not all the colors display correctly? All I care is that people do their jobs with zero distractions... my company doesn't pay people to surf the web. We pay them to take phone calls and drive airline tickets out the door, and to date, a browser isn't required to do that.

For your career's sake, you might want to get a handle on this. If you worked for me and proposed changing everyone's browser because the images were "prettier", I'd laugh at you and forbid it.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Neil Derryberry _
> *For your career's sake, you might want to get a handle on this. If you worked for me and proposed changing everyone's browser because the images were "prettier", I'd laugh at you and forbid it. *


I think we all had a certain amount of Piss & Vinegar in us when we got our first jobs. Thats what 2nd jobs are for


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Nick _
> *It's not a matter of a better browser. Because of MS marketing practices, bundling IE with their already ubiquitous OS, starting with Win95. they decimated Netscape, a browser that once held 80-90% market share. No existing or new browser, no matter how superior to IE, will ever gain a significant market share of the browser market.*


I don't buy that argument. Adobe has Acrobat. You'd think Microsoft would want that market, but Adobe has succeeded in making Acrobat the standard. Quicken is still around after taking the best Microsoft can put toward it. Heck TurboTax killed Microsoft's tax program. How about Norton? Doesn't every computer come with Disk Defrag? 


> *
> Let me put it this way: If an automaker offered you free gas for the life of their cars, would you buy any other brand?*


But what if that car didn't come with seat belts? You had go somewhere else to get them. Look the browser is part of the OS, not a application that rides on top of it. Microsoft figured it out and beat Netscape to the punch.


> *Unless you know and understand the history of Bill Gates and Microsoft, particularly their stranglehold on OEMs, vendors and retailers, you can't fully appreciate how devastatingly oppressive their tactics have been to the spirit of inventiveness, fair competition and free enterprise in America. *


Oh I agree. Microsoft has stolen more ideas and killed more great products than the Big 3 automakers. That said, its too late. Why should I sacrifice my operating system to some crappy open source program can get a free ride. Microsoft cheated, but the end user benefits from it IMO.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *James, there ARE BETTER PRODUCTS. Mozilla (Netscape is based on Mozilla) is the best.*


If they were better they would get more than 5% of the market. Microsoft could keep them from winning, but the lack of penetration shows that Netscape and Mozilla are irrelevant.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *I optimized my last comparision to be a little more fair on IE. This is about the best displaying I can make the image on IE, by trimming the blank space and changing the assigned background colour. It still doesn't look like it SHOULD however. *


Why does it matter? If this is your only argument why IE isn't a good browser then I have to say you don't have any leg to stand on. How does this benefit any end user in a corporate environment?


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

Here, I just found something really funny:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/filter/reference/filters/alphaimageloader.asp

It's Microsoft's page on how to use AlphaImageLoader

It makes it sound like it's a really great thing and it's magic that you can use images with an alpha channel in IE with AlphaImageLoader. What they fail to mention is that in ANY other major browser (Mozilla, Netscape, Opera, IEMac, WebTV) you simply have to put it as a normal inline image and the alpha channel is handled properly. Just like W3C says. Micro$oft insists on their propriety, security-compromising, plugin to make the same thing work?!?! Of course, using AlphaImageLoader has the positive (to Microsoft) affect of rendering the page useless to a standards-compliant browser. Which is really suspicious. Because I can't see any other reason for the proprietary AlphaImageLoader.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *" In 2 years Netscape/Mozilla/Opera will either be dead or have less than 1% of the market. "
> 
> Nonsense. Mozilla/Netscape is GAINING market share. IE isn't even choice on Linux which has about 5% of the American market. AOL for MacOSX uses a custom version of Mozilla. AOL for Windows will likely be introducing it in the next version. If anyone can beat MS, it's going to be AOL Time Warner. (Not that they're THAT much better, but they are the lesser of the two evils) *


LOL, where is your proof? Here is mine...

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t297-s2121436,00.html



> Netscape browsers command a miserable 4 percent market share today


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

"If they were better they would get more than 5% of the market. Microsoft could keep them from winning, but the lack of penetration shows that Netscape and Mozilla are irrelevant."

Uh, together, the alternatives have over 5% of the market (I count IE for Mac as a seperate browser because it's far superior)

"Why does it matter? If this is your only argument why IE isn't a good browser then I have to say you don't have any leg to stand on. How does this benefit any end user in a corporate environment?"

It matters because adding a full alpha channel massively increases creative options in webpage design, which helps in marketing and advertising your product over the internet. And it's not my only arguement against IE. You missed my second and third points (it sometimes will ignore a fixed pixel width if there isn't enough room to display the object, and it will render HTML even if the server sends a file type of text/plain). And there are other issues also.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *Uh, together, the alternatives have over 5% of the market (I count IE for Mac as a seperate browser because it's far superior)*


Ok so its 7-10% :shrug:


> *It matters because adding a full alpha channel massively increases creative options in webpage design, which helps in marketing and advertising your product over the internet. And it's not my only arguement against IE. You missed my second and third points (it sometimes will ignore a fixed pixel width if there isn't enough room to display the object, and it will render HTML even if the server sends a file type of text/plain). And there are other issues also. *


Dude, don't be so myopic all the time. :bang: Look past the end of your monitor and enter the real world.


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

Netscape may have a 4% browser share, but all the alternatives together have far more.

Also, I found further proof Micro$oft may be clueless and not doing this deliberately: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;Q294714&

"If you browse to a Web page that contains an image that has a transparent background in Portable Network Graphics (PNG) format, the image background may appear to be gray rather than transparent."

ONE: It has NOTHING TO DO WITH TRANSPARENCY. Standard binary transparency works FINE. Full alpha control is the problem.

TWO: The background need not be grey. That's what it will be if you use Photoshop since it doesn't let you specify an image file background colour. But it will be whatever the image specified background colour is. And many programs (like GIMP) allow you to define this. So Microsoft doesn't even know how their own software works?!?!?!

And proof for my conspiracy theory: "Web developers who work with PNG files can use the AlphaImageLoader filter, as demonstrated in the following example:"

Of course they fail to mention that doing so will break the page for all other major browsers!

And proof of other pissed of web authors: http://www.fridgemagnet.org.uk/archives/about_the_site/002083.shtml

"If you are a user of Internet Explorer, you may be having issues with the display of some of the images in this site - quite probably the icons.

This is due to a bug in IE. For details, see this Microsoft Knowledge Base article: Q294714 - PNG Files Do Not Show Transparency in Internet Explorer. Why is this not fixed? I don't know. There's no excuse for it. Mozilla and Opera seem to be able to display transparent PNG images fine.

I'll go some way to supporting IE, I know a lot of people use it, but I'm not going to make my site look worse because it has bugs. I might try to fix the problem with the AlphaImageLoader filter as they suggest, but I'm not going to kill myself for it. I suggest that, if you are using this out-of-date browser, you change to a better one, such as one of those mentioned above."


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

OK Zac, but somehow the web is able to move on with 95% of browsers not able to show transparency in your PNGs...


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Rage=Zac


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

Chris, please don't spread those rumors. You know that's incorrect as you have IP logs. I am not Rage. I'm not nearly as into conspiracy theories But you MUST admit, it's easy to believe a conspiracy theory about Microsoft. And I do find it interesting their knowledge base article that tells people to use AlphaImageLoader fails to mention that it will break the page for all other browsers... (and even if you use JavaScript to detect which browser and redirect to a seperate page for IE (something almost do web designers would do), just having the non-standard AlphaImageLoader call will make your page non-W3C compliant)


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *Chris, please don't spread those rumors. You know that's incorrect as you have IP logs. I am not Rage. I'm not nearly as into conspiracy theories But you MUST admit, it's easy to believe a conspiracy theory *


Ok, Here is an official test. If this conspiracy theory ends up on Art Bell's web site, then Zac and Rage are the same person. Set stopwatches now (don't know why we would set stopwatches, but I like to say it none the less)

[Start Conspiracy Theory]

The Turtles have taken over at Turtle Beach, and are holding the Santa Cruz sound cards hostage (Turtles are complaining that the cards selling at too cheap a price for what their worth). One of the Turtle spokesmen looked strangly like MS CEO Steve Balmer.

[End Conspiracy Theory]

Quick, you contact Art Bell, and I'll get the Turtle nets.

  :hi:


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

MS CEO Steve Balmer


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

Well gcutler, only Chris can tell you I'm not Rage and he doesn't seem willing to do so. Well, Scott or Steve could also... But anyways, there are many differences between us. Rage likes to spread conspiracy theories. I don't. But I'm also very passionate about my political beliefs. And when I see a company like Microsoft abusing power; then I simply must try to fight for the best interests of the American people. Rage was unfriendly to those who disagree. I believe in friendly academic discussion of an issue, not passionate arguement. I get the pro-MS side's beliefs. When I was younger I was pro-MS. Because I believed the lies. The lies about the free market always deciding what is right. The problem is, in computer software there is no free market. Microsoft has cheated their way into a monopoly situation. And FWIW, I no longer believe in a free enterprise economy as being ideal anyways On the other hand, it seems to me as if Rage would die to protect the free enterprise economic model.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Zac: Why should I use .PNG images instead of .GIF or .JPG? .GIF provides transparency AND allows for animated icons. .JPG allows for more colors.

And, in a tech support capacity, what do you want me to support in terms of browsers, e-mail programs, ftp programs, and such? Knowing the server settings is the easy part. Where to plug those settings in... that's hard.


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

Z'Loth. Right now, today PNG makes an excellent replacement for GIF, with smaller file sizes and no risk of being sued by Unisys. Transparency works in IE for PNG just fine.

THE PROBLEM with IE is that it won't render a full 8-bit alpha channel with variable levels of transparency. It will only do GIF-style transparency with a palette key colour being transparent. Look closely at my example above and you'll see that you can partially see through the image and that the edges are blended slowly into the background. No other file format supports this yet, and I have no reason to believe when they add it to JPEG (it's being worked on) that IE will support it properly. Microsoft seems set on having people use their proprietary AlphaImageLoader for images with a full alpha channel. This is of course unacceptable as you must write two pages, one for IEWin and one for all other major web browsers (a fact Microsoft fails to tell people when they tell them to use AlphaImageLoader).

---- UPDATE ----
To answer your second question:

"And, in a tech support capacity, what do you want me to support in terms of browsers, e-mail programs, ftp programs, and such? Knowing the server settings is the easy part. Where to plug those settings in... that's hard."

I assume you mean for an ISP or corporate network administrator. I believe they should support:

Operating Sytems:

Windows (95 - Me)
Windows NT (4 and up, including 5.0 (2000) and 5.1 (XP))
MacOS (8 and up)
MacOS X (all versions)
Red Hat Linux (7 and up)
Mandrake Linux (7 and up)
Lycoris Desktop/LX (all versions)
Lindows (all versions)
SuSe (7 and up)

More obsure OSes the user should be able to figure out on their own.

Browsers:

Mozilla (1.0 and up)
Netscape (6.0 and up)
Internet Explorer Mac (5.0 and up)
Internet Explorer Win (5.5 and up)
Opera (6.0 and up)
Konquerer (3.0 and up, except for older versions built into OSes mentioned above (like Desktop/LX) - these proprietary versions should also be supported)

How's that sound? I don't think it's too unreasonable to expect companies to provide that minimal level of support


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *I assume you mean for an ISP or corporate network administrator. I believe they should support:
> 
> Operating Sytems:
> ...


Zac, I had to pick myself off the floor after reading that. You obviously have no idea about the corporate world. :lol:


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *I assume you mean for an ISP or corporate network administrator. I believe they should support:
> 
> [List below]
> ...


From my experience at working tech support:

Operating Sytems:

Windows (95 - Me) - 95 calls are rare. Many of the calls are 98 and Me.
Windows NT (4 and up, including 5.0 (2000) and 5.1 (XP)) - Haven't received a NT4 call in months. 2000 and XP I get about 3-4 calls a week.
MacOS (8 and up) - Rare.
MacOS X (all versions) - Rare.
Red Hat Linux (7 and up) & Mandrake Linux (7 and up) - Those users just need the settings. That's all.
Lycoris Desktop/LX (all versions) - Never heard of it.
Lindows (all versions) - Never got a call.
SuSe (7 and up) - Never got a call.

Browsers:

Mozilla (1.0 and up) - Mozilla and Netscape support are almost the same. 
Netscape (6.0 and up) - We still have users who prefer Netscape 4.x ... yours truly included.
Internet Explorer Mac (5.0 and up) - Lump it with the Mac calls. I have a iMac at my workstation for support.
Internet Explorer Win (5.5 and up) - Microsoft only supports 5.5 and above. We go back to 4. 
Opera (6.0 and up) - No calls
Konquerer (3.0 and up, except for older versions built into OSes mentioned above (like Desktop/LX) - these proprietary versions should also be supported) - Never heard of it.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by James_F _
> *
> 
> Zac, I had to pick myself off the floor after reading that. You obviously have no idea about the corporate world. :lol: *


Testify!, Testify! 

I've actually been yelled at for trying to support a 3rd Operating System (instead of the 2 that were officially supported) .

Since I like to jump from job to job I think I've done a good sampling over the years (big companies, small companies, consulting). On average I'd say that 2 OSes is all the get supported. Either the one they are at and the one they want to goto. Or the one they were at and the one they just migrated to.

At my last job NT 4.0 was being phased out, Win2K Pro was official OS. If someone sent a machine thru the IT department, as long as there was enough memory or drive space or cpu in it, it left there with W2KPro (or NT Workstation if the system couldn't handle W2K). Even on servers, Only 2 OSes allowed. Win2K was preferred, NT 4.0 if SW absolutley required it. We had a product that required Linux Redhat, I said I could support the OS, but Corporate would have flown in from Europe and kicked me in the nads if I did that. Even people with XP were treated like lepers, either they were techies in the IT dept who could support themselves or they were shortly not to be XP users.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *Well gcutler, only Chris can tell you I'm not Rage and he doesn't seem willing to do so. *


I'll let the Turtle story decide. If it leaks to the press, you are Rage, if not you are Zac. 

Did you like the Steve Balmer JPG? I know you want to make it your Background


----------



## Neil Derryberry (Mar 23, 2002)

I think that this thread can be summed up with this:

Zac (mark) has a bug up his as* where the stick used to be.

C'mon, Zac, get a life! Nobody seems to care about poor little Opera besides you.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Neil Derryberry _
> *I think that this thread can be summed up with this:
> 
> Zac (mark) has a bug up his as* where the stick used to be.
> ...


I don't think it is sooo much a Bug up his as*, but in High School and College, there is plenty of time to Pontificate about the pros and cons of which software is better and which software is bad. I remember having a conversation with a guy who insisted that any company that does not use "ADA" will be run out of business by those who do. Like the software would drive a companies profitability as opposed to what they produce.

Of course once you get out into the real world, you realize that the differences so important to you in college mean nothing and best SW isn't an issue. It is what can do X (and nothing more) for the least amount of $ or disruption to the existing environment. I remember being knocked over when a company I worked for picked an clearly inferior PC over a really good one because it could be depreciated over 5 years while the good PC could only be depreciated of 3 (don't know why it would be any different but it was for some reason) After witnessing something like that you lose alot of your "piss and vinegar" 

Or even better, the CIO's golfing buddy is a vendor that only sells XYZ, so guess what you use XYZ.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Look, he doesn't realize what happens in the real world. Its not the end users who dictact what software/hardware they use. Its the head of the IT department. You don't get a choice of what browser you can install, you don't get a choice of which programs you can run, you don't get a choice of which hardware companies you can deal with. In the company I just joined, its all Dell/Windows 2000/Windows 2000 Server and Adobe products. If I want Macromedia or Corel, I'm SOL and I'm fine with that. The CIO at the old company was college buddies with our computer vendor. We used HP for most stuff and paid a premium for using this vendor. Its not right, but thats the way it is. This attitude where you are expecting to get software/hardware that you want Zac isn't going to fly. At your first job, you'll get hand-me-down computer that doesn't have a working CD-Rom drive and a S3 video card that doesn't work with anything later than Windows 95. Thats the way things are....


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

No, Zac does not equal Rage. I was joking because of the conspiracy talk. 

Zac, I tend to agree with these fellas. The corporate world is a whole different ball game. You will do what the man with the paycheck says no matter what your beliefs. Oh yes, you can voice your opinions but ultimately the boss will have the final say. 

I would suggest that since you think the way you do and are that passionate about your beliefs, start your own company because you won't like working for others in the IT world.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by James_F _
> * At your first job, you'll get hand-me-down computer that doesn't have a working CD-Rom drive and a S3 video card that doesn't work with anything later than Windows 95. Thats the way things are.... *


Zac, It can be even worse, I would have been happy with that on some jobs. I remember one job, I worked for a guy who didn't think Contractors rated their own PCs, so there I was the Network Administrator on his OS/2 Lan Server network and I would use the PC of whomever was out sick that day (not very Hygenic a policy). And I dreaded the day when there was no one out sick. I had to ask people to borrow their PCs for 15 minutes at a time. Didn't matter that I was often wasting my time and his time, he signed my pay sheet.


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

"I would suggest that since you think the way you do and are that passionate about your beliefs, start your own company because you won't like working for others in the IT world"

Nope. I sure wouldn't. And that's exactly why I have no intention on working in "the IT world". People say I should enter a computer related field because I'm fairly knowledgeable. That may be true. But 12 hour work days, burnout, stress, and a total lack of job satisfaction (for me, I don't think I would be, many love it) are not my ideas of fun No sir, computers are a hobby of mine. If my plans do change and I enter the computer business, it will probably be starting up a local parts and repair shop. I just don't think I could handle working with computers in corporate Ameica though. I recognize the facts of life ignore the spirit of the Internet and also a lot of my more values. Corporate America in general ignores a lot of my values (like that people with too much - like Microsoft - should be forced to give some of it up to the public)


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

> like that people with too much - like Microsoft - should be forced to give some of it up to the public


Sounds like something I read a while back from this Marx guy. I don't recall if it was Groucho or Harpo though.  By the way, Microsoft gives away plenty to a variety of charities.


----------



## SkiManiac (Nov 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *Hey Ski, when I get a chance (should be within a couple weeks) I'll design a page for you to view in both and I guarantee you'll change your mind about IEWin being the best browser *


Thanks Zac, but I don't think I'll be downloading a browser right now, I'm happy with IE, so far? Thanks though! What exactly happens on some pages with IE, and what's the difference? Just curious


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *Nope. I sure wouldn't. And that's exactly why I have no intention on working in "the IT world".*


Even small companies still have standards that must be maintained. You'll be in for quite a ride...


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

What I meant James, is that I have no intention of ever using a computer in my workplace.

"Thanks Zac, but I don't think I'll be downloading a browser right now, I'm happy with IE, so far? Thanks though! What exactly happens on some pages with IE, and what's the difference? Just curious"

My main complaint with IE is that it treats a PNG alpha channel by making it the background colour, instead of the page background. I mentioned two other, more minor, flaws at the begining of this thread also. There a few more also...


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *What I meant James, is that I have no intention of ever using a computer in my workplace.
> *


You are kidding me right? Computers are just about everywhere. Chances are any job you get will involve a computer. Even if you are not part of the IT people that maintain them, you will be involved in some level of "maintenance" for your own computer workspace.

Word of advice. If you want to hold your job for any length of time, stay out of the IT department. You would probably drive them crazy.


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

What I meant was a computer won't be central or important to my job. Yes, I will end up having to use one, but only occasionally.


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

Maybe he'll use an abacus?










Or a slide rule?










Or a pig farmer?


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

James, Thats a mighty Purty Pig you gots there


----------



## James_F (Apr 23, 2002)

You'll remember him from this picture....


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *What I meant was a computer won't be central or important to my job. Yes, I will end up having to use one, but only occasionally. *


Zac,

The politics we have discussed in relation to the IT world, applies to everything in the real world. If you work in Goverment, you'll be exposed to political appointments that have no understanding of the job and are only aware of the political side of any situation, not the real world that you will be living in at that time. If you go academic, try vocalizing the opposite point of view of the head of the department and see what classes you end up teaching... In one way or another, you will eventually have to work opposite of your opinions (computer or anything else related)


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

" In one way or another, you will eventually have to work opposite of your opinions"

I do fully understand that. It's sad really. But it is one of those facts of life and I do know it. And right now, yes - I am deciding between a career in government and one in education. I want a career where I can make people's lives better.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

_"I want a career where I can make people's lives better"_

Zac, why not become a gynecologist. No computers, and the view never changes. :lol:


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

:lol: LOL

Ah, Nick I never expected to read something like that, but considering the person that posted it... 

After a semi-rough afternoon, you just made my day! I needed a good laugh right 'bout now


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Happy to be of service, my friend.


----------



## SkiManiac (Nov 12, 2002)

Nick, you may want to change your signature


----------



## TopCat99 (Nov 3, 2002)

Wanna help people? Try social work or psychology (counseling concentration).

On the browser issue, I for one don't give a rat's ass what people use (I'm a libertarian ), but I love this little bit of irony: PA is one of the states that sued M$ over the whole antitrust thing, yet I cannot renew my driver's license or vehicle registration online UNLESS I use IE. :lol:


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

Its all about the Liberty Bell and Cheesesteaks


----------



## TopCat99 (Nov 3, 2002)

I'm on the other end--near Pixxburgh :lol:


----------

