cross browser test problems

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Drew, Jul 25, 2009.

  1. Drew

    Drew Guest

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

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

    http://www.xponentsoftware.com

    Thanks

    Drew
     
    Drew, Jul 25, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Drew

    dorayme Guest

    dorayme, Jul 25, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Drew wrote:

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


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


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


    Links want to be *links*


    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Jul 25, 2009
    #3
  4. Drew

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Jul 24, 9:10 pm, Drew <> wrote:
    > I used browsertests.org to see how different browsers handle our
    > website and three browsers displayed an error dialog on the landing
    > page. Problem is that the screenshots provided by browsertests.org
    > have poor resolution so I cannot read the error message.


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

    >
    > If you have Opera 10, Safari 2.4.1 or MSIE 8.0 would you kindly view
    > our website and tell me if you get an error dialog and what it says?
    >
    > http://www.xponentsoftware.com


    You mention that your program works on Vista. Does it work on 64-bit
    Vista? I just bought a program that was supposed to work on Vista, but
    would not work on 64-bit Vista, only 32-bit. Fortunately I got a
    refund. In these days of more and more demanding media, such as Blu-
    ray, much faster PCs, such as some using the Intel Core i7 processor,
    are needed to speed up things and allow processing of perhaps up to 8
    threads at once. Often much more memory is needed also - I am using 10
    GB at present. A 32-bit Windows OS will handle only somewhere between
    3 and 4 GB of Memory. You have to use a 64-bit OS to allow use of up
    to 24 GB of memory.
     
    cwdjrxyz, Jul 25, 2009
    #4
  5. Drew

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 25 Jul 2009, cwdjrxyz <> wrote:

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


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

    --
    Neredbojias
    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
     
    Neredbojias, Jul 25, 2009
    #5
  6. Neredbojias wrote:
    > On 25 Jul 2009, cwdjrxyz <> wrote:
    >
    >> 10 GB at present. A 32-bit Windows OS will handle only somewhere
    >> between 3 and 4 GB of Memory. You have to use a 64-bit OS to allow
    >> use of up to 24 GB of memory.

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


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

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Jul 25, 2009
    #6
  7. On 2009-07-25, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    > Neredbojias wrote:
    >> On 25 Jul 2009, cwdjrxyz <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> 10 GB at present. A 32-bit Windows OS will handle only somewhere
    >>> between 3 and 4 GB of Memory. You have to use a 64-bit OS to allow
    >>> use of up to 24 GB of memory.

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

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


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


    --
    Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
    ===================================================================
    Author:
    Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
     
    Chris F.A. Johnson, Jul 25, 2009
    #7
  8. Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
    > On 2009-07-25, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    >> Neredbojias wrote:
    >>> On 25 Jul 2009, cwdjrxyz <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> 10 GB at present. A 32-bit Windows OS will handle only somewhere
    >>>> between 3 and 4 GB of Memory. You have to use a 64-bit OS to allow
    >>>> use of up to 24 GB of memory.
    >>> Does this mean that it is pointless to get *more* than 4GB of memory if
    >>> you have a 32-bit Windows OS? (Been thinking of upgrading.)
    >>>

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

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


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


    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Jul 25, 2009
    #8
  9. Drew

    Drew Guest

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

    Drew
     
    Drew, Jul 25, 2009
    #9
  10. Drew

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Jul 25, 12:45 pm, Drew <> wrote:
    > Thanks for all the input. Changes have been implemented so everything
    > works with straight  html and no javascript needed.
    >  Seems this tread has gotten away from the original topic after
    > cwdjrxyz asked me if our software runs on 64 bit Vista. I have tested
    > it on 32 bit Vista, but not 64 bit. You are free to download the beta
    > and try it on 64 bit vista.http://www.xponentsoftware.com. The
    > program does not need much memory, as explained on the web site.


    I downloaded and installed your 2.1.5 beta program using a 64-bit
    Microsoft Vista OS. There were no problems in downloading, and the
    program screen that comes up looks normal. I have not tried to use the
    program, as I do not have any XML applications that would need it at
    this time and do not have the time to set up an XML application just
    to test this program. However many programs that will not work on 64-
    bit Vista will not even open properly after you download them.
     
    cwdjrxyz, Jul 25, 2009
    #10
  11. Drew

    Drew Guest

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

    > I downloaded and installed your 2.1.5 beta program using a 64-bit
    > Microsoft Vista OS. There were no problems in downloading, and the
    > program screen that comes up looks normal. I have not tried to use the
    > program, as I do not have any XML applications that would need it at
    > this time and do not have the time to set up an XML application just
    > to test this program. However many programs that will not work on 64-
    > bit Vista will not even open properly after you download them.
     
    Drew, Jul 25, 2009
    #11
  12. Drew

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 25 Jul 2009, "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:

    > Neredbojias wrote:
    >> On 25 Jul 2009, cwdjrxyz <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> 10 GB at present. A 32-bit Windows OS will handle only somewhere
    >>> between 3 and 4 GB of Memory. You have to use a 64-bit OS to allow
    >>> use of up to 24 GB of memory.

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

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


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

    --
    Neredbojias
    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
     
    Neredbojias, Jul 26, 2009
    #12
  13. Drew

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Jul 26, 4:53 am, Neredbojias <> wrote:
    > On 25 Jul 2009, "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:
    >
    > > Neredbojias wrote:
    > >> On 25 Jul 2009, cwdjrxyz <> wrote:

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

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

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

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


    It is very important to have a modern processor if you are going to
    take full advantage of a lot of memory on a 64-bit system. It not only
    needs to be very fast but also be capable of handling several threads
    at the same time. I am using the Core Intel i7. This chip costs from a
    few hundred to over a thousand $US depending on the speed. You pay a
    lot more for just a little increase in speed, so the basic chip will
    do for most people. When you push this processor to the maximum speed
    and number of threads being processed, it puts out a lot of heat,
    about 130 watts , I believe. Thus it has a huge heat sink and large
    fan to cool it. Mine has a special exhaust tube that goes to a grille
    on the computer case and 2 other fans to cool other parts of the
    computer. There are those who will resort to overclocking and a water
    cooler for the chip to make it even faster. Beside the increase in
    speed for a single thread, you can run about 8 threads at once,
    provided there is enough memory. Of course anything on the web is
    child's play for it given the speeds most isps can provide. But at the
    same time you can be processing a Blu-ray movie, listening to music,
    printing out reports, etc without slowing things down. Some of the
    media programs are beginning to take advantage of multiple thread
    processing for computers that can do it. Even editing standard DVD
    video can be very slow, and Blu-ray is much worse.
     
    cwdjrxyz, Jul 26, 2009
    #13
  14. Drew

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 26 Jul 2009, cwdjrxyz <> wrote:

    > On Jul 26, 4:53 am, Neredbojias <> wrote:
    >> On 25 Jul 2009, "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:
    >> > Yes, technically a 32-bit OS, (any, not just Windows) cannot
    >> > address more than 4GB. Common Usenet question on Ubuntu, "64-bit
    >> > processor with 32-bit Ubuntu cannot see all my RAM". I am sure you
    >> > will see similar posts on any OS list...

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

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


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

    --
    Neredbojias
    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
     
    Neredbojias, Jul 27, 2009
    #14
  15. Drew

    Doug Miller Guest

    In article <>, Neredbojias <> wrote:
    [...]
    > Vista sucks (I refuse to get that POS) and it's like impossible to
    >find a high-end with Xp on it anymore.


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

    And it's waaay better than Win2K or Win98.

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


    Hope may be all you have... IMO, installing the *first* release of *any* MS OS
    is asking for trouble.
     
    Doug Miller, Jul 27, 2009
    #15
  16. Drew

    David Segall Guest

    Neredbojias <> wrote:


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


    You can have the Windows 7 Release Candidate now if you want it and
    you don't have to pay for it until February 28, 2010
    <http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/get/download.aspx>. You
    have to download it before August 20, 2009. I believe that it is
    already better than Vista and the price is right.
     
    David Segall, Jul 27, 2009
    #16
  17. Drew

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 27 Jul 2009, (Doug Miller) wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Neredbojias <> wrote: [...]
    >> Vista sucks (I refuse to get that POS) and it's like impossible to
    >>find a high-end with Xp on it anymore.

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


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

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

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

    > And it's waaay better than Win2K or Win98.


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

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

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


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

    --
    Neredbojias
    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
     
    Neredbojias, Jul 28, 2009
    #17
  18. Drew

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 27 Jul 2009, David Segall <> wrote:

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

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


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

    --
    Neredbojias
    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
     
    Neredbojias, Jul 28, 2009
    #18
  19. Drew

    freemont Guest

    On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:05:22 +0000, Neredbojias writ:

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


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

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

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

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

    HTH

    --
    "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
    ¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> freemont© <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
     
    freemont, Jul 31, 2009
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jeff
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,180
    vanilla
    Oct 6, 2007
  2. msdngroup
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    733
    msgroup
    Jan 30, 2008
  3. msdngroup
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    598
    msdngroup
    Dec 15, 2007
  4. msdngroup
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    384
    msgroup
    Jan 30, 2008
  5. Replies:
    16
    Views:
    272
    Richard Cornford
    Sep 7, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page