Explorer Won't Display Page!

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 02:58:47 GMT, "SJH"
scribbled some thoughts:

NOTE: Best viewed in a fixed pitch font


On 4-Nov-2004, Andrew H. Carter wrote:

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 14:30:19 GMT, "SJH"
scribbled some thoughts:

NOTE: Best viewed in a fixed pitch font

What do you mean?


You say the top section won't display, what particular part
doesn't display? The graphic part with the Auditor Address
and the two logos at the top left, which when you click on
one of the links, normally just remain there? Or the red
part, well it was red yesterday, but appears as a form now.

Have you given them feedback?
Have you told them that if they are trying to hide their
links, anybody with HTML experience can pull the link in a
matter of seconds? Most often that is the case. Even
people who frame their site, leave out/**** off people who
don't have frames capable browsers due to not realizing they
can include links for non frames capable browsers.

I once wrote a letter to Land's End stating that due to the
fact that there are still quite a bit of browsers on the
market which don't do frames, they are alienating them if
they don't manage a way for them to explore their site.
Since my first experience with the WWW was via a Brother
GeoBook NB80C laptop organizer, my process was upon
encountering such a site/page:

1) Save the page to disk.
2) Open the page in a text editor.
3) Glean the URLs
4) Create links from those URLs in an HTML file
5) Open that file via my File Manager (akin to Windows
Explorer)
6) Resume surfing and if I encountered another framed page
repeat steps 1-5.
7) How long would I remain a customer if I encountered a
hostile frames page, hostile towards non-frames capable
browsers?
8) If everybody and their mother would upgrade, get this and
that, because everybody else was doing so, how long would
their money last?
9) If a person was in the mood to purchase something online
and encountered that hassle, would they just say: "Ah screw
it, I'll go some place else"?

As far as I can tell, they got rid of their frames design
and still keep it frameless, though I'd have to fireup my
GeoBook to be sure.

--
Sincerely, | (©) (©)
| ------ooo--(_)--ooo------
Andrew H. Carter | /// \\\
d(-_-)b |

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 19:48:26 -0500, Wolf Kirchmeir
wrote:

MS has closed the door on that OS. BTW, MS will
phase out DOS support in its future OSs. To run a DOS program in WinXP,
a virtual DOS machine must be set up, which adds complications.

So what? This is exactly the same as for 2K, and it works fine for the vast
majority of MS-DOS applications. If you're using more DOS than that, you need
to reconsider your choice of O/S, MS-DOS 6.22 is still available. :-)

"Wolf Kirchmeir" wrote in message
...
Richard Berger wrote:
[...] lets face it, you don't need the bloat,
and win98se has been around long enough to have the bugs worked out,
plus,
whatever extra you get with XP can be added to 98se.
Dickey B

Win9x, even in its most recent incarnation, is not as stable a system as
WinNT/2K/XP, nor is it as capable. If you haven't encountered this fact,
you just haven't worked your system very hard. (Bloat is another issue -
there is no technical reason for WinXP to be so bloated, but that's MS's
marketing strategy, and in any conflict between marketing and
engineering, engineering loses.)

And, sorry, your last point is simply wrong: many of the extras that
come with XP are not available for Win9x. What's more, they won't be,
since XP is not a DOS extension, like Win9x, and what's written for XP
won't run on Win9x without extensive rewriting, which MS will not do.
That's what "no more support means." Future extras and upgrades will not
be available for Win9x; MS has closed the door on that OS. BTW, MS will
phase out DOS support in its future OSs. To run a DOS program in WinXP,
a virtual DOS machine must be set up, which adds complications.

As for the bugs being worked out of Win98SE, again, you just haven't
worked your system hard enough to encounter them. The reason MS
abandoned Win9x is that it was clear that it could not be made into the
stable, multitasking system that people want and business needs. That's
why MS chose to develop NT into Win2000 and WinXP.

Wolf,
I would like some examples of things that come with XP that aren't available
from other software vendors.

Also, please note that my comment regards OLDER MACHINES. I don't think you
can dispute the fact that Win98SE will out-perform Win2K on a machine with
only 64meg or RAM.... hands down

By the way... I do a lot of video and audio editing, and my preferred
machine is a homebrew unit with 512m ram, and an ECS741GXM motyherboard
running a 1.8G AMD Athelon processor. Running Windows98, this machine will
re-process a video file 20% faster than it will when I boot to WinXP, using
the same video editing software.