Tekforums
Chat => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rivkid on August 02, 2007, 15:53:12 PM
-
Did a screeny to show my g/f my work desktop - thought Id share. Whats everyone elses look like a the minute?
(http://img487.imageshack.us/img487/561/desktopcz4.th.jpg) (http://img487.imageshack.us/my.php?image=desktopcz4.jpg)
-
(http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/7108/pclinuxosdesktop2007bermi3.th.png) (http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/7108/pclinuxosdesktop2007bermi3.png)
Gentlemen, Behold! Watch in amazement as we extend the desktop beyond the theoretical z-axis, creating a Frinkahedron... oy glaven! :P
(http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/8375/pclinuxosdesktop2007bervm9.th.png) (http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/8375/pclinuxosdesktop2007bervm9.png)
-
Showoff :P
My desktop - in true familiar fashion - is Windows Bliss backdrop with a mass of icons covering the 1600x1200 display resolution.
-
(http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/7172/desktopon1.th.jpg) (http://img174.imageshack.us/my.php?image=desktopon1.jpg)
-
(http://www.morssdn.idps.co.uk/images/Desktop1400.jpg)
Rum and Eigg from Mallaig Feb07, on work Latitude. I only use my own material :mrgreen:
-
http://www.jc86.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/messydesk.JPG
-
(http://www.palmer934.plus.com/dt1.jpg)
-
http://www.jc86.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/messydesk.JPG
if that was cropped I could see the top of her hair...
and maybe the bottom hair & a bit of crack :mrgreen:
-
http://www.jc86.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/messydesk.JPG
if that was cropped I could see the top of her hair...
and maybe the bottom hair & a bit of crack :mrgreen:
hah well it wasnt me who cropped it, it was a widescreen one i downloaded, honest guvna
-
http://www.doubledhosting.com/pics/Desktop-02-08-07.jpg
-
Not the most exciting of desktops...
(http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/5161/desktop1qo8.th.png) (http://img300.imageshack.us/my.php?image=desktop1qo8.png)
-
Not the most exciting of desktops...
(http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/5161/desktop1qo8.th.png) (http://img300.imageshack.us/my.php?image=desktop1qo8.png)
Nope but simple and functional :)
I always like to have a mint picture on my desktop, something that is a little bit breath taking.
-
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1276/994866451_ba1b52ea61_o_d.jpg
Photo of me and my mates graduating. Theres two tekforumers in that pic :D 1 = Me... the other... SexyTW :D
-
(http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/689/desktopox3.th.jpg) (http://img529.imageshack.us/my.php?image=desktopox3.jpg)
Twice the screen, twice the desktop :)
-
Nothing Special.
(http://img177.imagevenue.com/loc471/th_76244_desktop_122_471lo.jpg) (http://img177.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=76244_desktop_122_471lo.jpg)
-
laptop = http://jc86.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/vistadesk.jpg
yeah its boring but its only been installed for about an hour.
-
Looks quite nice PuNK
-
(http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/8845/desktopev9.th.png) (http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/8845/desktopev9.png)
-
installed for an hour ? PAH! I can beat thet
15mi after install :p (clicky for actual size)
(http://www.knighty1.com/desktopsmall.JPG) (http://www.knighty1.com/desktop.JPG)
-
(http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s98/sadie1985/desktop.jpg)
Its a photoshop image that I did of my cat :)
-
its crap.
-
well thats fair enough people have their own opinions lol :-) I just have it for sentimental reasons just to remember her by :shrug: :)
-
I did have a lol etc.. on the end of that post before..... just it was funnier without :P
-
kinda boring at the moment.
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1145/1041887288_acd58ebc72.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackham/1041887288/)
-
(http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s98/sadie1985/desktop.jpg)
Its a photoshop image that I did of my cat :)
Its a rorshach test... I SEE THE CUP I SEE THE CUP!!! :o
-
installed for an hour ? PAH! I can beat thet
15mi after install :p (clicky for actual size)
ultramon ftw!
-
metal head: LMAO :lol:
-
its crap.
/beats knighty over head with stick...
its fantastic!
He gets there in the end ;)
-
installed for an hour ? PAH! I can beat thet
15mi after install :p (clicky for actual size)
(http://www.knighty1.com/desktopsmall.JPG) (http://www.knighty1.com/desktop.JPG)
the question is, how long will it stay this tidy? im trying hard to keep mine clean lol
-
stay that tidy ?
I was installing.... its better now !!!
(http://www.knighty1.com/desktop2small.JPG) (http://www.knighty1.com/desktop2.JPG)
(clicky again.... still got 2 files or gfx drivers on there and the ultramon installer that need to get sorted/stored away!)....
-
What a waste of real estate, this is how it would look if it were my desktop:
(http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/4498/untitled5db4.gif)
-
you forgot the pr0n in the background though?
-
its crap.
/beats knighty over head with stick...
its fantastic!
He gets there in the end ;)
LOL :lol: :mutley:
Now thats what you call a "cool serious" attitude 8)
-
What a waste of real estate, this is how it would look if it were my desktop:
(http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/4498/untitled5db4.gif)
lol what a waste of memory.
-
LMAO Rich youll love this...
I have on my desktop:
31,925 Files, 640 Folders
80.2Gb of data :lol:
All just a click away!
-
ROFLMAO!!! THATS INSANE!!! :D lol!!!
-
Nope thats our nige... :mutley:
-
Would that not be a double click away unless you have the single click powertoys enabled?
Im surprised you dont make a toolbar item for it so will be single click away still but you can have a clean desktop.
-
Well I just use it as a convenient dumping ground for things, before I get around to archiving them (which happens very irregularly :lol: ) so I generally dont need quick access anyway.
-
my new one.
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.hamilton6000/screen.jpg)
-
I was going to ask is that Milla but I noticed the folder... :)
-
I was going to ask is that Milla but I noticed the folder... :)
yes my favorite female, thats a drawing.
-
(http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/733/desktopvista13707rr7.jpg)
-
Dug this out again, Ive changed.
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.hamilton6000/New%20Folder/REE%a3.jpg)
-
(http://stashbox.org/37366/screen.JPG)
-
Im an icon lover too, 20gb and counting :(
-
sorry to dig this up, but mine ...... very boring
(http://photos-d.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v183/47/87/533785797/n533785797_334839_2743.jpg)
-
Are you the last person in existence on 640x480?
-
Are you the last person in existence on 640x480?
lol .. no im at 800x600 i just stick xp to classic mode .. the image looks bad cos i converted for web using photoshop and dropped the quality to make it small size, so it would load alright .... think its a habit now .. still remember dail up days when images took forever to load .. force of habit
-
Are you the last person in existence on 640x480?
lol .. no im at 800x600 i just stick xp to classic mode .. the image looks bad cos i converted for web using photoshop and dropped the quality to make it small size, so it would load alright .... think its a habit now .. still remember dail up days when images took forever to load .. force of habit
Still then you have to say - Are you the only one still on 800x600? :mutley:
-
had to attach it because my webspace is boogered....
think i need to get rid of an icon or two... its getting a bit full there :o
theres 79gig there :mutley:
-
(http://www.tekheads.co.uk/images/tekheads/krisdesktopthumb.jpg) (http://www.tekheads.co.uk/images/tekheads/krisdesktop.jpg)
2960 x 1050
-
(http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/6143/desktopfeb2008iq8.th.jpg) (http://img530.imageshack.us/my.php?image=desktopfeb2008iq8.jpg)
http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/9750/desktopfeb2008so8.jpg
-
Are you the last person in existence on 640x480?
lol .. no im at 800x600 i just stick xp to classic mode .. the image looks bad cos i converted for web using photoshop and dropped the quality to make it small size, so it would load alright .... think its a habit now .. still remember dail up days when images took forever to load .. force of habit
Still then you have to say - Are you the only one still on 800x600? :mutley:
oh in that case probably ...... only on a 17" monitor .. would knacker my eyes if i stuck it higher
i read alot of data sheets . so this size for easy reading
-
sorry to dig this up, but mine ...... very boring
(http://photos-d.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v183/47/87/533785797/n533785797_334839_2743.jpg)
Mine is similar except the task bar is up the right hand side of the screen, and Im using a higher resolution, 1360*1024.
-
Are you the last person in existence on 640x480?
lol .. no im at 800x600 i just stick xp to classic mode .. the image looks bad cos i converted for web using photoshop and dropped the quality to make it small size, so it would load alright .... think its a habit now .. still remember dail up days when images took forever to load .. force of habit
Still then you have to say - Are you the only one still on 800x600? :mutley:
oh in that case probably ...... only on a 17" monitor .. would knacker my eyes if i stuck it higher
i read alot of data sheets . so this size for easy reading
My notebooks 15" and higher and its fine :)
-
Are you the last person in existence on 640x480?
lol .. no im at 800x600 i just stick xp to classic mode .. the image looks bad cos i converted for web using photoshop and dropped the quality to make it small size, so it would load alright .... think its a habit now .. still remember dail up days when images took forever to load .. force of habit
Still then you have to say - Are you the only one still on 800x600? :mutley:
oh in that case probably ...... only on a 17" monitor .. would knacker my eyes if i stuck it higher
i read alot of data sheets . so this size for easy reading
My notebooks 15" and higher and its fine :)
mmm .. i might be going blind then ..lol .. im sat pritty far from the monitor most of the time .. might be why
-
I used to do something like 1400*1080 on a 15" notebook without any problem.
-
I used to do something like 1400*1080 on a 15" notebook without any problem.
did u sit reading on it all day tho?
-
I used to do something like 1400*1080 on a 15" notebook without any problem.
did u sit reading on it all day tho?
Some days I wrote in excess of 10,000 words on it, that took most of the day.
-
on a 17 inch there should be no reason not to be running it higher especially in terms of the web now for example as nearly most new sites think people should be past the crappy 800, 600 ratio by now
If you really have been running 800x600 since the dawn of time it is just simply switching and getting used to a decent resolution and if your screen looks dodgy, buy a new lcd
-
might need my eyes testing dunno .... 1024x768 is about as much id be happy to read on all day
-
on a 17 inch there should be no reason not to be running it higher especially in terms of the web now for example as nearly most new sites think people should be past the crappy 800, 600 ratio by now
If you really have been running 800x600 since the dawn of time it is just simply switching and getting used to a decent resolution and if your screen looks dodgy, buy a new lcd
lcd .. lol im still using a crt .. well happy with it .. even this site is slightly to big for this rez
-
just have to check
your date reads 2008 yeah? Its not like that movie with the radio and the dude talking to his dad in the past but web versionised?
:rofl: :rofl:
-
just have to check
your date reads 2008 yeah? Its not like that movie with the radio and the dude talking to his dad in the past but web versionised?
u mean the film .. frequency ....lol ..... ive been on this rez for years and im happy with .. dont see the point in wacking up the rez to strain my eyes to read
-
1680x1050 and people on higher here, so you know :) my macbook pro is at 1440x900 and clear as a bell
-
is this called rez bashing ..lol
-
is this called rez bashing ..lol
You will find 1680x1050 is a norm these days :)
-
is this some atempt to make me change my rez? cos that aint gonna happen
-
did a quick online eye test so i know im not blind
http://getyourwebsitehere.com/eyetest/eyetest01.html#
-
^ Dude have you tried setting to 1024 and upping the windows font sizes to 9 or 1o point? display settings -> appearance -> advanced.
mine
-
my new one.
-
^ Dude have you tried setting to 1024 and upping the windows font sizes to 9 or 1o point? display settings -> appearance -> advanced.
it doesnt enlarge web page fonts tho .. xps folders and that stuff
-
In fairness if the man prefers 800x600 there is nothing wrong with that. Not everyone wants uber small buttons so they can use their l337 clicking skillz all the time.
If your not using your computer for something like multiple windows/applications or graphics work then there is little beneift for most people.
Leave the man be!
EDIT: Attached is the BAD ASS desktop im using at the moment - no pretending here - I like to keep thing standard. (Its my mums PC while my laptop gets fixed :))
-
In fairness if the man prefers 800x600 there is nothing wrong with that. Not everyone wants uber small buttons so they can use their l337 clicking skillz all the time.
If your not using your computer for something like multiple windows/applications or graphics work then there is little beneift for most people.
finally someone understands ... maybe the only time i do put the rez up is for photoshop and solidworks
-
^ Dude have you tried setting to 1024 and upping the windows font sizes to 9 or 1o point? display settings -> appearance -> advanced.
it doesnt enlarge web page fonts tho .. xps folders and that stuff
Thats why microsoft has 120dpi fonts.
Settings -> advanced... use 120dpi fonts.
Sorted, enlarged fonts. I use it on my TVPC.
-
^ Dude have you tried setting to 1024 and upping the windows font sizes to 9 or 1o point? display settings -> appearance -> advanced.
it doesnt enlarge web page fonts tho .. xps folders and that stuff
Thats why microsoft has 120dpi fonts.
Settings -> advanced... use 120dpi fonts.
Sorted, enlarged fonts. I use it on my TVPC.
yeah it will work for enlarging windows fonts and folders and stuff .. but not web page content fonts .. if it did or there was a sulution to that i would up my rez
-
I browse the internet with it on. Enlarges pretty much all fonts to my knowledge. Those that dont get enlarged, I just use the ctrl + + or ctrl + - to enlarge stuff on the web in IE7.
-
I browse the internet with it on. Enlarges pretty much all fonts to my knowledge. Those that dont get enlarged, I just use the ctrl + + or ctrl + - to enlarge stuff on the web in IE7.
dont think i have ie7 on mine ..not on my machine atm so cant check but only on ie6 on this one and it doesnt work on this
-
I browse the internet with it on. Enlarges pretty much all fonts to my knowledge. Those that dont get enlarged, I just use the ctrl + + or ctrl + - to enlarge stuff on the web in IE7.
dont think i have ie7 on mine ..not on my machine atm so cant check but only on ie6 on this one and it doesnt work on this
Mouse wheel, hold ctrl, scrol - bigger fonts in your browser, sorted
-
put ie7 on this laptop , it did start crashing stright away,but the zoom thing works ok. max rez on this is 1024x768 so cant really test if its better, the thing is by the time i enlarge everyting i can its gonna look like it was at 800x600. there is always gonna be sommat that doesnt want to enlarge, and ill end up dropping the rez again anyhow
-
put ie7 on this laptop , it did start crashing stright away,but the zoom thing works ok. max rez on this is 1024x768 so cant really test if its better, the thing is by the time i enlarge everyting i can its gonna look like it was at 800x600. there is always gonna be sommat that doesnt want to enlarge, and ill end up dropping the rez again anyhow
Firefox, safari - IE = sh*te
-
put ie7 on this laptop , it did start crashing stright away,but the zoom thing works ok. max rez on this is 1024x768 so cant really test if its better, the thing is by the time i enlarge everyting i can its gonna look like it was at 800x600. there is always gonna be sommat that doesnt want to enlarge, and ill end up dropping the rez again anyhow
Firefox, safari - IE = sh*te
Safari is the sh*ttest of the lot, how the hell can you possibly like that POS.
Firefox... also considerably sh*tter than IE.
-
put ie7 on this laptop , it did start crashing stright away,but the zoom thing works ok. max rez on this is 1024x768 so cant really test if its better, the thing is by the time i enlarge everyting i can its gonna look like it was at 800x600. there is always gonna be sommat that doesnt want to enlarge, and ill end up dropping the rez again anyhow
Firefox, safari - IE = sh*te
Safari is the sh*ttest of the lot, how the hell can you possibly like that POS.
Firefox... also considerably sh*tter than IE.
Your less then, Firefox sh*tter then IE - ROFL, Web developer stand point here IE IS sh*t sh*t sh*t, IE7 user interface is crap, noobs like IE
And where did I say I liked Safari? I dont I use Firefox on macbook pro and on pc, Safari is quick and was just listed as an alternative
-
put ie7 on this laptop , it did start crashing stright away,but the zoom thing works ok. max rez on this is 1024x768 so cant really test if its better, the thing is by the time i enlarge everyting i can its gonna look like it was at 800x600. there is always gonna be sommat that doesnt want to enlarge, and ill end up dropping the rez again anyhow
Firefox, safari - IE = sh*te
Safari is the sh*ttest of the lot, how the hell can you possibly like that POS.
Firefox... also considerably sh*tter than IE.
Your less then, Firefox sh*tter then IE - ROFL, Web developer stand point here IE IS sh*t sh*t sh*t, IE7 user interface is crap, noobs like IE
And where did I say I liked Safari? I dont I use Firefox on macbook pro and on pc, Safari is quick and was just listed as an alternative
No... web developer standpoint here... IE7... AWESOME... firefox... holds your hand, covers up peoples crap non-validating code, by displaying pages with missing tags and all sorts of script errors. IE7 at least will show either NADA... or state "er.. its broked".
So for developers especially IE7 is better than firefox :) Helps avoid bugs, and looking at the website eggtastico linked in another thread, appears firefox has more limited JS support than IE.
-
Pro web developers use FF, and know about IEs lazy standards implementations and rather novel ways of dealing with code to which you adapt accordingly. +1 for the Firefox fans.
-
Pro web developers use FF, and know about IEs lazy standards implementations and rather novel ways of dealing with code to which you adapt accordingly. +1 for the Firefox fans.
try this is firefox and IE.
woo im a title that someones forgotten to close the tag for<br /></head><br /><body><br />In IE you wont see this as it doesnt try and compensate for poor coding. In firefox the lovely cuddly creature that it is will lovingly show you this message despite this.... thus hiding a developers bugs from the developer. More a firefox bug, rather than a feature.<br /></body><br /></html><br /></code>
</dd>
<dt class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Re:Show us your desktop!</strong><br />
Post by: <strong>Clock'd 0Ne</strong> on <strong>February 11, 2008, 13:52:39 PM</strong>
</dt>
<dd class="postbody">
Im the first to complain about the bugs in FF, you wont win me over with things like that. Its still a far better and more compliant browser than IE on the whole. Its much easier to trick IE to behaving accordingly than it is to trick every other browser to try and behave how IE does.
</dd>
<dt class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Re:Show us your desktop!</strong><br />
Post by: <strong>SteveF</strong> on <strong>February 11, 2008, 14:06:26 PM</strong>
</dt>
<dd class="postbody">
erm.... The engine should be able to work out that the title tag hasnt been closed as the head flag has been closed. Thats the proper way to handle it as title is a child flag of head... It should render it fine and then tell you via a warning that theres a mistake.<br /><br />CBA to run it but thats what should be happening in both browsers. Im guessing Firefox does it properly and IE doesnt. IE has significantly more dodgy coding errors especially when it comes to padding and borders.
</dd>
<dt class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Re:Show us your desktop!</strong><br />
Post by: <strong>M3ta7h3ad</strong> on <strong>February 11, 2008, 20:53:46 PM</strong>
</dt>
<dd class="postbody">
<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote">Quote from: SteveF</div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">erm.... The engine should be able to work out that the title tag hasnt been closed as the head flag has been closed. Thats the proper way to handle it as title is a child flag of head... It should render it fine and then tell you via a warning that theres a mistake.<br /><br />CBA to run it but thats what should be happening in both browsers. Im guessing Firefox does it properly and IE doesnt. IE has significantly more dodgy coding errors especially when it comes to padding and borders.</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br /><br />IE shows nothing, hence indicating "there be something wrong here" firefox doesnt show any errors, merely renders the page, I consider the latter way of dealing with it as incorrect.<br /><br />Great for the viewer, but if youre a developer not so great as it will let you do such simple retarded errors as the above (highly likely when doing a website in the early hours :D) :)
</dd>
<dt class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Re:Show us your desktop!</strong><br />
Post by: <strong>neXus</strong> on <strong>February 11, 2008, 21:35:02 PM</strong>
</dt>
<dd class="postbody">
<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote">Quote from: M3ta7h3ad</div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote">Quote from: SteveF</div></div><blockquote class="bbc_alternate_quote">erm.... The engine should be able to work out that the title tag hasnt been closed as the head flag has been closed. Thats the proper way to handle it as title is a child flag of head... It should render it fine and then tell you via a warning that theres a mistake.<br /><br />CBA to run it but thats what should be happening in both browsers. Im guessing Firefox does it properly and IE doesnt. IE has significantly more dodgy coding errors especially when it comes to padding and borders.</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br /><br />IE shows nothing, hence indicating "there be something wrong here" firefox doesnt show any errors, merely renders the page, I consider the latter way of dealing with it as incorrect.<br /><br />Great for the viewer, but if youre a developer not so great as it will let you do such simple retarded errors as the above (highly likely when doing a website in the early hours :D) :)</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br /><br />Retards would not do such an error and if you are a developer you use your coding software and webtools when your creating and such silly errors will be shown in your software before you even go to render the page and if you got your developer plugin it will show it as well<br />If it renders it renders and joe blogs does not need to see the errors if the site is live and nothing more then an annoyance to them if it does
</dd>
<dt class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Show us your desktop!</strong><br />
Post by: <strong>M3ta7h3ad</strong> on <strong>February 11, 2008, 22:18:20 PM</strong>
</dt>
<dd class="postbody">
yeah and those of us who use notepad variants and one browser during development (using the other browsers once a site has been developed to test :)) are so going to see the error before rendering the page.<br /><br />When I am thinking about how to parse text data into XML and to then parse it into a database for archiving, or rather some other process... thinking about "title" tags isnt automatically top of my agenda. I tend to code, if I f**k up.. itll show up on the site when I view it.<br /><br />IE would show the error... Firefox would not. (plugins schmuggins... you mean you actually have to patch firefox with a 3rd party plugin to get it to work as a browser should) Its invalid code... it shouldnt display it. An interpreter doesnt auto correct it goes "oi thar be an exception ere... fix it" yay... html being an interpreted language should be no different.
</dd>
<dt class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Show us your desktop!</strong><br />
Post by: <strong>neXus</strong> on <strong>February 11, 2008, 22:25:58 PM</strong>
</dt>
<dd class="postbody">
<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote">Quote</div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">yeah and those of us who use notepad variants and one browser during development (using the other browsers once a site has been developed to test :)) are so going to see the error before rendering the page.</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br />Sorry to say but if your doing anything decent web wise and make that sort of simple error and not run a xhtml validation to check your code - noob<br /><br /><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote">Quote</div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">When I am thinking about how to parse text data into XML and to then parse it into a database for archiving, or rather some other process... thinking about "title" tags isnt automatically top of my agenda. I tend to code, if I f**k up.. itll show up on the site when I view it.</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br />Should not even have to think about the basics if your doing that, I can do the basic html stuff not looking at the screen talking to someone, did that before I came to NZ, created a basic xhtml page for someone chatting to a friend for a good 5-10 minutes, only glanced at the screen a few times. Not super sh*t hot at it either<br /><br /><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote">Quote</div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">IE would show the error... Firefox would not. (plugins schmuggins... you mean you actually have to patch firefox with a 3rd party plugin to get it to work as a browser should) Its invalid code... it shouldnt display it. An interpreter doesnt auto correct it goes "oi thar be an exception ere... fix it" yay... html being an interpreted language should be no different.</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br /><br />No, People use plugins to take the browser further and extend its functionality to allow you to do more stuff you want to do and as an option and better then not having that choice at all
</dd>
<dt class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Show us your desktop!</strong><br />
Post by: <strong>M3ta7h3ad</strong> on <strong>February 11, 2008, 22:53:53 PM</strong>
</dt>
<dd class="postbody">
<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote">Quote from: neXus</div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote">Quote</div></div><blockquote class="bbc_alternate_quote">yeah and those of us who use notepad variants and one browser during development (using the other browsers once a site has been developed to test :)) are so going to see the error before rendering the page.</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br />Sorry to say but if your doing anything decent web wise and make that sort of simple error and not run a xhtml validation to check your code - noob<br /></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br /><br />Because yes... all the cool kids check validation whilst a site is in development... of course.<br /><br /><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote">Quote</div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">When I am thinking about how to parse text data into XML and to then parse it into a database for archiving, or rather some other process... thinking about "title" tags isnt automatically top of my agenda. I tend to code, if I f**k up.. itll show up on the site when I view it.</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br />Should not even have to think about the basics if your doing that, I can do the basic html stuff not looking at the screen talking to someone, did that before I came to NZ, created a basic xhtml page for someone chatting to a friend for a good 5-10 minutes, only glanced at the screen a few times. Not super sh*t hot at it either<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Because yes... every time I make a html website I make an error like this of course. Just because I have highlighted one example of the numerous that firefox deals with incorrectly does not directly reflect on my ability whatsoever.<br /><br /><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote">Quote</div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><br /><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote">Quote</div></div><blockquote class="bbc_alternate_quote">IE would show the error... Firefox would not. (plugins schmuggins... you mean you actually have to patch firefox with a 3rd party plugin to get it to work as a browser should) Its invalid code... it shouldnt display it. An interpreter doesnt auto correct it goes "oi thar be an exception ere... fix it" yay... html being an interpreted language should be no different.</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br /><br />No, People use plugins to take the browser further and extend its functionality to allow you to do more stuff you want to do and as an option and better then not having that choice at all</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br /><br />Id much rather have the functionality built in, as opposed to an afterthought. Additional functions sure.... but then thats what IE has had since at least 6... possibly even 5, plug-ins arent a new idea.
</dd>
<dt class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Show us your desktop!</strong><br />
Post by: <strong>neXus</strong> on <strong>February 11, 2008, 23:12:31 PM</strong>
</dt>
<dd class="postbody">
<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote">Quote</div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">Because yes... all the cool kids check validation whilst a site is in development... of course.</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br />Err yes if it is large or if your even semi good you do not need to, silly errors is very noobish<br /><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote">Quote</div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><br />Because yes... every time I make a html website I make an error like this of course. Just because I have highlighted one example of the numerous that firefox deals with incorrectly does not directly reflect on my ability whatsoever.</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br />SO your kicking up a fuss about nothing on these forums again? Shock horror...<br />Small pointless thing that is meaningless if you do things properly or use the things you do if your making websites - lol<br /><br /><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote">Quote</div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">Id much rather have the functionality built in, as opposed to an afterthought. Additional functions sure.... but then thats what IE has had since at least 6... possibly even 5, plug-ins arent a new idea</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br />Making it bloated for the people who do not need such things, that is clever :rofl:
</dd>
<dt class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Show us your desktop!</strong><br />
Post by: <strong>M3ta7h3ad</strong> on <strong>February 12, 2008, 11:38:57 AM</strong>
</dt>
<dd class="postbody">
<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote">Quote from: neXus</div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote">Quote</div></div><blockquote class="bbc_alternate_quote">Because yes... all the cool kids check validation whilst a site is in development... of course.</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br />Err yes if it is large or if your even semi good you do not need to, silly errors is very noobish<br /><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote">Quote</div></div><blockquote class="bbc_alternate_quote"><br />Because yes... every time I make a html website I make an error like this of course. Just because I have highlighted one example of the numerous that firefox deals with incorrectly does not directly reflect on my ability whatsoever.</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br />SO your kicking up a fuss about nothing on these forums again? Shock horror...<br />Small pointless thing that is meaningless if you do things properly or use the things you do if your making websites - lol<br /><br /><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote">Quote</div></div><blockquote class="bbc_alternate_quote">Id much rather have the functionality built in, as opposed to an afterthought. Additional functions sure.... but then thats what IE has had since at least 6... possibly even 5, plug-ins arent a new idea</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br />Making it bloated for the people who do not need such things, that is clever :rofl: </blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br /><br />Id hardly consider adding useful functionality to a program as bloat. Certainly beats going around adding your own "bloat" afterwards as youve called it.<br /><br />Big deal out of nothing? Im not the one throwing toys out of the pram here, I just said that safari is the crappest browser known to mankind and firefox is not the shiny golden turd that youre led to believe, but is in fact rather smelly and just as brown as the rest. IE while not shiny and golden by any stretch of the imagination, at least works in a manner that I find preferable than relying on being to realise a single word of text is missing in a page that could include several hundred lines of code.<br /><br />Mate if youve 1337 skills, one has to wonder why on earth someone like that had to resort to contacting non-employers/internet friends for references. Think Ill leave it at that really, im comfortable in my knowledge (more than in fact... having done a few commercial sites, several back end scripts and even intranet/sharepoint development prior to joining my current development role) but I certainly wont crush a helping hand if I get offered one.
</dd>
<dt class="postheader">
Title: <strong>Re:Show us your desktop!</strong><br />
Post by: <strong>Clock'd 0Ne</strong> on <strong>February 12, 2008, 11:52:49 AM</strong>
</dt>
<dd class="postbody">
I think it best we leave this here, as its taken the thread wildly off tangent and clearly we all will just have to agree to disagree.
</dd>
</dl>
<div id="footer" class="smalltext">
<span class="smalltext" style="display: inline; visibility: visible; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.tekforums.net/credits/" title="Simple Machines Forum" target="_blank" class="new_win">SMF 2.0.19</a> |
<a href="https://www.simplemachines.org/about/smf/license.php" title="License" target="_blank" class="new_win">SMF © 2021</a>, <a href="https://www.simplemachines.org" title="Simple Machines" target="_blank" class="new_win">Simple Machines</a><br /><a href="http://www.tekforums.net/gpdr/?sa=privacypolicy">Privacy Policy</a>
</span>
</div>
</body>
</html>