Anything Forums

Hey Red how much bandwith does your site use?

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1705, old post ID:16671

last month we used about 8GB, that was our peak at 80,000 page views in the month. check out the other stat threads in the daily freeze forum for the other months. I started doing stats recently so there's only a few months there but there's also a general monthly summary.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1705, old post ID:16680

How much bandwidth do you have????

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1705, old post ID:16683

originally 10, I talked the host into giving me 20.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1705, old post ID:16686

Haha used this article for English class since we had to make a magazine article, so I made it as if it was in a tech magazine.

She did not like it because I did not explain enough what certainthings are, such as MS hearts, Mozilla etc... Yeah, like a real magazine article would start stating the obvious. Then she wanted something backup that IE has security flaws. Sure, I'll give you a link and when you type it all your files will be erased courtesy of me. ActiveX rulez!!!

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1705, old post ID:18907

Wow... After reading this article I was blown away by your ignorance.

And before I get into my argument, I'm going to tell you that I am most likely one of the biggest standards compliance nit-picks you will ever meet. I am huge on following code standards, and coding for cross-browser compatibility and accessibility (including different window sizes). But your article reveals your ignorance, and your teacher was right You can't expect your teacher to have a technological background like that.

I'm just going to quote your article, and explain your ignorance.

Internet Explorer, also known to many people as Internet Exploder, is the worse way to browse the Internet. Unfortunately, most people do use it

Here's your first mistake. You say IE is the worse way to browse the internet, yet most people use it. If most people use it, then does it not make sense that developers code for IE? Many companies only support IE, as it is simply too costly to support Mozilla/Netscape. The amount of money their time is worth, is too much compared to how very little the amount of customers they will lose. They would be losing money if they supported another browser.

So imagine the number of security flaws in Windows itself, and there are allot there as well. Even Ms hearts probably has security flaws!

Of course Windows has a lot. And I'm sure if other OSs were in the spotlight as much as Windows is, they would have just as many. And your little statement about MS hearts is a completely biased bash that is based on nothing.

Every single click has the possibility in leading you to a disaster.

What the hell are you talking about. That is simply an ignorant statement, referring to very rare hypothetical scenarios.

Another thing is that IE lets sites do anything to it.

No, the client lets the site do anything to you. When you set your privacy and security settings to the lowest possible setting (which isn't factory default, mind you) then things can be downloaded to your computer without a warning message. Whose fault is that? Yours!

Security and privacy is one reason that using IE is bad, the other is standard. IE is horrible and handling standard code. Instead, it uses it's own standards! A very good example of this is the fact that you can put a color on <hr> tag and change the width and height. You may think this is good that IE supports more stuff, but it's not. I used to program this site and test it in IE only. For me it looked very good. But only after trying it in a different browser did I realized my code was crap and that the whole site looked horrible. That's because I was using no CSS and no standard code.

Your talking about chosing an alternite browser, are you not? My response to that paragraph is "Who cares!!!". That paragraph refers to developers, not clients. IE is definitely not up to standards, simply because it hasn't been touched in almost three years now. However, it is the best at fixing very buggy code. What's more frequent, insanely buggy code or a standards compliance web site? I can only hope you know the answer to that question. It is good that IE supports more stuff, at least for non-standards compliance developers of which, I'm guessing that there are many more than not. No CSS and no standard code? To tell you the truth, there are many web sites like this (actually, they are using a little bit of CSS, but not much) and IE fixes the site up beautifully. While Mozilla renders it correctly, but it displays terribly. The common browsers doesn't care that is renders it correctly, the user only cares about what he sees. Thusly, IE proves to be better.

I've worked a long way since then and now test using Mozilla and Opera, and try as hard as possible to make it look good in IE as well, but you can't please standards and non standards.

As do I. You try as hard as possible and still can't get it working? You need to try harder buddy It isn't that hard. You seem smart enough, be creative and start generating your stylesheets dynamically depending on browser. I actually have one layout where it only needs one change, and that change only occurs in Gecko based browsers (mozilla being one of them), of which they render it incorrectly while IE renders it correctly. And no, it isn't the other way around. Why would you please 'standards and non standards'? You just need to please the different browsers rendering your page.

In IE, the site has many faults such as borders that are "skipped" and table cells completely ignored. Nothing a webmaster can do about it other then making it look like crap in standard browsers. Here are a few screen shot samples:

Yes, that has happened to me. But I've also seen it happen your beloved Mozilla... lol (concerning missing borders). Browsers have bugs, face it.

As for the shoutbox, that is unexplainable, and unacceptable.

No it isn't. You didn't allow the reader of your article to decide. How about sharing the code you used? I gurantee you it is something you did wrong. I think your code might be 'unexplainable, and unacceptable'... lol

It's best to make your website look good in Mozilla or Opera or any other alternative, because even though it won't look good in IE, the browser most people use, it won't look THAT bad.

LOL... This is absolutely the best one. It's best to make your web site look good in Internet Explorer, then start moving to other browsers. Why? Well... this is the funny part, you said it yourself! It's because it's the browser most people use! And you also insinuate that if it looks great in mozilla it won't look good in IE. Wrong... My current layout for my site, and my up and coming layout look beautiful in IE, Mozilla, and Opera.

I have found Mozilla to be the fastest browser. It's much faster then IE.

The speed is unoticeable. At least for me. Rendering a page in IE takes literally the same amount of time mozilla takes. I would need to benchmark them to see which is faster. Although, undoubtedly mozilla will come out on top, since it renders the code it gets and does very little to try and fix it.

In IE, I've always been lucky to get downloads at 50KB/sec. In Mozilla, I often get past 200KB/sec!

That difference is not justified by a switch in browser. Perhaps you are mixing up kilobytes and kilobits?

Now, another alternative is Opera.

My opinion is that opera is terrible, and renders pages even worse than IE. I code for it though, as many use it. I have also *heard* it has spyware, although I have detected none.

So if you are using IE, hopefully you will consider to change. If not, your computer's data is at risk, your personal information is at risk

Not really. Just make sure your security settings are at least on medium. And as long as you have some other sort of protection on your computer (virus scanner and firewall) you will be fine. I'm sure mozilla has exploits too, but since mozilla doesn't have the mass population using it, you tend to discover that those sorts of bugs are few and far between.

and your Internet experience is not all that great and fast!

Oh please.... It's better. Like I've said, most companies code for IE, and a lot of the time, IE only. What the hell are you going to do about it? Nothing. When using IE, it is proven that you will receive the best user experience, simply because most web sites are made around IE and that's that. Life isn't fair, I know

After my little argument here, you may assume many things that aren't true. I am very pro-mozilla. I even snuck it into school and installed it on my account- although it doesn't run too well on the machines there.

I code for IE, Mozilla, and Opera and I don't just 'except' an error in a layout. I find a way to fix it. I don't start complaining about the browser and how it doesn't support this and that, there isn't anything I can do about. I deal with it, find a work around, and it comes out great. And I still code to the standards very effectively.

I use IE right now seamlessly in EditPlus, simply because it's tabbed, and my code and browser windows are all in one window. I don't need to open up firefox in another taskbar window when I can just run IE seamlessly.

Your security argument is also extremely weak. Considering the mass population uses IE (at least 90% of the internet population), the bugs are going to be exploited faster, and more of them will be found. Mozilla on the other hand, people use it less, thus bugs come few and far between. You have also provided no proof of your 'security holes' argument.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1705, old post ID:19392

Gee, do you work for M$ or something? First time I see someone defend IE THAT much and take that much time to write a post against the article and make it twice the size of the article.


This is how secure IE is.

Make sure you save all your stuff before clicking though.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1705, old post ID:19393

Hey cool, that url is considered a virus since it made my A/V go! Only when I open it in IE, but not in mozilla or opera, go figure... I wonder why.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1705, old post ID:19394

I needn't click the link, I know IE can be crashed. It hasn't been updated for almost three years.

Lol... Did you read my post? I'm trying to point out your ignorance, that's all. If you were bashing mozilla, I would most definitely stick up for it, just as much as I did IE.

I notice that you didn't respond to really any of my arguments... do you have any counters?

I am simply a person who doesn't play favorites, I use whatever I need to use to get the job done, whatever is convenient to me. It just so happens that the rest of the world uses Windows with Internet Explorer... using something different can cause hassles.

But believe me, if I start writing in a developer's stand point, IE doesn't start to look so hot.

I think you just need to lighten up on IE a little bit, and accept that the mass population uses it.

Might I also add that chosing what browser to use is complete preference- it just so happens IE is more convenient for me.

I like to take time to write something in hope of someone listening to it. I just hope someone got something out of it- that's all

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1705, old post ID:19395

I just never bothered responding to every single one... but the fact that most people use it is true, but the article's point is to make people realize it's time for a change if they use it. IE has not been updated in ages, but yet html and css continues to evolve, so lot of new things that are possible with css don't work in IE, but in every other browser. Security, same thing, hackers find security holes - current browser developers fix them, but with the age of IE, they are not fixed. not to mention the sloppy programming of it to start off with. If I knew assembly I'd decompile it and point out some pretty nasty stuff I'm sure. That link is just one way to crash it, but I'm sure there is way more.

Also, do a search for warez with IE (just using warez as an example) you'll have to reboot in no time, but do the same search and click the same sites with any other browser and you'll be safe.

The only thing that get's mozilla good is java applets, but that's always something that may be fixed in the future, because 5 versions of mozilla come out before a new version of IE, so it's much more up to date with standards.

What would you use? An old rusty air plane that "everyone uses" or a brand new one that's only been for a few rides? I'd feel safer in the new one that does not have duct tape all over it.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1705, old post ID:19396

but the fact that most people use it is true, but the article's point is to make people realize it's time for a change if they use it. IE has not been updated in ages, but yet html and css continues to evolve, so lot of new things that are possible with css don't work in IE, but in every other browser. Security, same thing, hackers find security holes - current browser developers fix them, but with the age of IE, they are not fixed. not to mention the sloppy programming of it to start off with. If I knew assembly I'd decompile it and point out some pretty nasty stuff I'm sure. That link is just one way to crash it, but I'm sure there is way more.

Oh hey man, I'm on your side with that one. I just think you can do a much better job trying to persuade someone. Make intelligent statements and back them up If I had my way, IE would either be updated more often, or just completely abolished. On a developer's standpoint, IE is holding us back. The newest versions of FireFox are starting with in with CSS 3 (something to do with an opacity property specifically), and I am dying to get my hands on CSS 3.

Also, do a search for warez with IE (just using warez as an example) you'll have to reboot in no time, but do the same search and click the same sites with any other browser and you'll be safe.

I've been to quite a few warez sites in my day, and I'm just extravagently careful, and I come out fine.

because 5 versions of mozilla come out before a new version of IE

More like ten hehe

What would you use? An old rusty air plane that "everyone uses" or a brand new one that's only been for a few rides? I'd feel safer in the new one that does not have duct tape all over it.

But the old rusty air plane comes equipped with first class serive, and a great experience I use a mixture of both, but I'm usually using IE because of convenience.

I know I'm sounding very pro-IE, but I'm just being realistic. Sites out there code for IE, and for IE only. I hate it just as much as you do, but it is a fact of life. Developers and standards are starting to get better, but we will never live in a utopian internet world where we have a majority of sites complying to standards until IE starts making changes. It's really up to IE to start taking that gradual process of complying to w3's standards, and forcing companies to start reworking their code.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1705, old post ID:19401

Yeah that true... but as a web developper I make my site compatible with mozilla, that way it's closer to standards and works with most browsers. Only browser that gives me a problem is IE, and depending on how complex the site is, it's usually something minor such as a fixed background not being fixed, etc... this is a good example. Looks good in all browsers, but IE lacks the css to make the background fixed in the table. I may rewrite that article to show more examples of what IE lacks off since this is not the first time someone is against it.

I wanted to try and ditch using tables for layouts, when I found out that it does not work well in IE... so I'll stick to tables, easier to work with anyway.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1705, old post ID:19403

Internet Explorer >4 really isn't that bad with most pure-CSS layouts though, Red. It can do the absolute positioning, the floating, margins, etc... Its lack of display:table support annoys me.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1705, old post ID:19404

I find with IE it does not take much for anything with X Y positioning to become "broken" while tables seem to do better and keep everything in tact, and it's easier to be compatible with different resolutions. What I want to try to do eventually though is make my home page w3C complient, at least start with that and if it's not too hard I'd work on the rest of the pages, then even the forum.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1705, old post ID:19406

Yeah that true... but as a web developper I make my site compatible with mozilla, that way it's closer to standards and works with most browsers. Only browser that gives me a problem is IE, and depending on how complex the site is, it's usually something minor such as a fixed background not being fixed, etc... this is a good example. Looks good in all browsers, but IE lacks the css to make the background fixed in the table. I may rewrite that article to show more examples of what IE lacks off since this is not the first time someone is against it.

Actually, that site doesn't follow standards. It's using tables. That site uses tables wrong, so thusly, anything could be wrong.

I wanted to try and ditch using tables for layouts, when I found out that it does not work well in IE... so I'll stick to tables, easier to work with anyway.

You just need to try harder. Here look at this:
http://www.webtrickscentral.com/stuff/CSS/...hreecolumn.html

That's a perfect three column layout that I made. It took quite a long time, but it was worth it. Two columns is incredibly easy, but adding a third column needs a completely different method. If you look at the source, you'll notice it to be very unusual.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1705, old post ID:19407

Red Squirrel wrote: What I want to try to do eventually though is make my home page w3C complient, at least start with that and if it's not too hard I'd work on the rest of the pages, then even the forum.

The forum will be quite difficult and painstaking. Just remember there is a time to use tables, and a time not to use tables

(I'm sorry if you consider this double posting. It was replying to two different posts, of which the second I didn't see before.)

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1705, old post ID:19408

The problem though is that text overlaps when it is resized, that's the main problem I have with using only css. With tables it wraps better. I just need to figure out how to make it W3C and I think if I replace the width and height with css I should be ok. Same with the cellpadding and stuff.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1705, old post ID:19409

Red Squirrel wrote: I find with IE it does not take much for anything with X Y positioning to become "broken" while tables seem to do better and keep everything in tact, and it's easier to be compatible with different resolutions. What I want to try to do eventually though is make my home page w3C complient, at least start with that and if it's not too hard I'd work on the rest of the pages, then even the forum.

When you use pixels, you run the risk of that in every user agent. If you use the proper units, you shouldn't have that problem. IE6 resizes CSS layouts beautifully. Actually, it does it better than Gecko when the user has the window so small that text can't wrap anymore...

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1705, old post ID:19410

Red Squirrel wrote: The problem though is that text overlaps when it is resized, that's the main problem I have with using only css. With tables it wraps better. I just need to figure out how to make it W3C and I think if I replace the width and height with css I should be ok. Same with the cellpadding and stuff.

That's what the text is supposed to do. It overlaps, thus avoiding horizontal scrollbars in PDA's.

Making a page standardized also means using tables correctly, not just passing through the validator hehe

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1705, old post ID:19412

Wow just for fun I did a validation of the home page...

It does not want me to use CODE in urls... well that's needed because the page it's pointing to has that in it! MAybe I'll skip the W3C thing and just make sure it works in all browsers, which is something I'm close to anyway.

Here's an example of the output:

# Line 72, column 60: cannot generate system identifier for general entity "CODE"
# Line 99, column 59: cannot generate system identifier for general entity "f"
# Line 99, column 63: cannot generate system identifier for general entity "t"
# Line 99, column 70: cannot generate system identifier for general entity "view"
# Line 100, column 78: cannot generate system identifier for general entity "MID"
# Line 309, column 77: cannot generate system identifier for general entity

line 72: <a href="http://www.iceteks.com/forums/index.php ... etnew">New posts</a>



Line: <b><a href="http://www.iceteks.com/forums/index.php ... stpost"><u>[Strike out]</u></a></b></font><font style="font-size:10">



Odd... maybe I'll have to use 1337 in my urls if I want this W3C compliant LOL.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1705, old post ID:19413

You can't just have "&"... you need to have "&" in your URLs in your source

also, try using a XHTML 1.0 Strict DTD.

For such an advocate of Mozilla because of it's standards compliance, you don't take full advantage of it

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1705, old post ID:19414

Really? I figured that would not work for urls... I figured it would try to find a file with & in it etc... if I use it for a url.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1705, old post ID:19415

Red Squirrel wrote: Really? I figured that would not work for urls... I figured it would try to find a file with & in it etc... if I use it for a url.

Really lol

Yea, whenever you use "&" you must always actually use "&"

The trick is, when you're redirecting using the header function in PHP, don't use "&" lol...

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1705, old post ID:19416

just took it from experience. I have never seen IE download faster then 50KB. Sometimes it would actually go at 50KB on the dot but never higher. fire up another browser and download the same file and I get whatever bottleneck hits first: the server or my connection (usually my connection).

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1705, old post ID:21963

Netcaptor is based on IE, so it inherits some of it's vulnerabilities (although it seems to be more secure than IE itself in some aspects http://www.netcaptor.com/article/195/ )

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:1705, old post ID:21996