Remember Java Applets?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by cwdjrxyz, Feb 10, 2010.

  1. cwdjrxyz

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    Flash visual effects have now taken over most moving image effects for
    ads, and I am well aware of how many here dislike that use of flash.
    However many years ago animated gifs, dhtml, and Java were often used
    to make images move for ads. I have not seen a Java applet used for an
    annoying ad in many years. For an example of one of the most
    elaborate Java applet effects I know, see http://www.cwdjr.net/java/Weather/weather.html
    .. You will also see flash used in the code, but this is only for the
    audio. The applet can also use audio, but only in an older format for
    which I do not have a converter program - mpg and wav will not work in
    the applet. This applet, if autostarted, would make an ad that is as
    annoying as most modern flash ones. The marquee effect is done with
    Java, not with the marquee html tag. The message might read "Had your
    roof(or furnace) inspected recently? Call RipOff Inc. for a free
    inspection." Java applets will only validate at the W3C in
    transitional html or transitional xhtml.
    cwdjrxyz, Feb 10, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. cwdjrxyz

    Neredbojias Guest

    On 10 Feb 2010, cwdjrxyz <> wrote:

    > Flash visual effects have now taken over most moving image effects
    > for ads, and I am well aware of how many here dislike that use of
    > flash. However many years ago animated gifs, dhtml, and Java were
    > often used to make images move for ads. I have not seen a Java applet
    > used for an annoying ad in many years. For an example of one of the
    > most elaborate Java applet effects I know, see
    > http://www.cwdjr.net/java/Weather/weather.html . You will also see
    > flash used in the code, but this is only for the audio. The applet
    > can also use audio, but only in an older format for which I do not
    > have a converter program - mpg and wav will not work in the applet.
    > This applet, if autostarted, would make an ad that is as annoying as
    > most modern flash ones. The marquee effect is done with Java, not
    > with the marquee html tag. The message might read "Had your roof(or
    > furnace) inspected recently? Call RipOff Inc. for a free inspection."
    > Java applets will only validate at the W3C in transitional html or
    > transitional xhtml.


    And your point is..?

    --
    Neredbojias
    http://www.neredbojias.org/
    http://www.neredbojias.net/
    Neredbojias, Feb 10, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. cwdjrxyz

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Feb 10, 3:27 pm, Neredbojias <> wrote:
    > On 10 Feb 2010, cwdjrxyz <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > Flash visual effects have now taken over most moving image effects
    > > for ads, and I am well aware of how many here dislike that use of
    > > flash. However many years ago animated gifs, dhtml, and Java were
    > > often used to make images move for ads. I have not seen a Java applet
    > > used for an annoying ad  in many years. For an example of one of the
    > > most elaborate Java applet effects I know, see
    > >http://www.cwdjr.net/java/Weather/weather.html. You will also see
    > > flash used in the code, but this is only for the audio. The applet
    > > can also  use audio, but only in an older format for which I do not
    > > have a converter program - mpg and wav will not work in the applet.
    > > This applet, if autostarted, would make an ad that is as annoying as
    > > most modern flash ones. The marquee effect is done with Java, not
    > > with the marquee html tag. The message might read "Had your roof(or
    > > furnace) inspected recently? Call RipOff Inc. for a free inspection."
    > >  Java applets will only validate at the W3C in transitional html or
    > > transitional xhtml.

    >
    > And your point is..?


    Java is still around, but mainly used for programming purposes such as
    on control panels for some servers. Although the use of Java applets
    for web pages can still produce elaborate effects for web pages, it
    likely is little used anymore, especially by those who write html
    pages for profit, because it often requires much more time than flash
    and one must know the Java language well. Then it is likely that many
    have Java turned off because few web pages require it anymore. Many
    years ago you had to have Java enabled to view parts of our local
    public library's site, but I can not think of any web page I use much
    anymore that requires Java to be on to avoid missing important
    content.
    cwdjrxyz, Feb 11, 2010
    #3
  4. On Feb 10, 7:10 pm, cwdjrxyz <> wrote:
    > > > Flash visual effects have now taken over...

    > > And your point is..?

    > Java is still around, but...


    The reason people started going more with Flash is that is actually
    works on everyone's computer. Java's write once play everywhere idea
    never really worked. Incompatible versions of java, and missing or
    incompatible pieces were always a an issue, backwards compatibility
    was almost ignored.

    Now with Actionscript and the server scritping of your choice, and
    interfaces such as air you have the ability to write client, server,
    or combination based applications. Flash is now what Java wanted to
    be.

    With Adobe integrating all of their applications it makes creating
    "fancy" websites even easier. Many of the "fancy Flash" I create for
    sites is realy a mixture of video, after effects or blender motion
    graphics, and Flash animations.

    In conclusion....
    It works
    It's a powerful application development tool
    It's relativly easy to learn
    virtually everyone can see it (though some choose not to)
    and as developers begin to learn to use actionscript for animations it
    can produce some mighty small files.
    Travis Newbury, Feb 13, 2010
    #4
  5. cwdjrxyz

    rf Guest

    "Travis Newbury" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Feb 10, 7:10 pm, cwdjrxyz <> wrote:
    > > > Flash visual effects have now taken over...

    > > And your point is..?

    > Java is still around, but...


    The reason people started going more with Flash is that is actually
    works on everyone's computer.

    Not on mine, it doesn't.
    rf, Feb 13, 2010
    #5
  6. On Feb 14, 7:50 pm, buzzard <> wrote:
    > > The reason people started going more with Flash is that is actually
    > > works on everyone's computer.
    > > Not on mine, it doesn't.

    > mine either.  I looked at dnlding it, its humongous.


    There is a difference between "can't see it" and "decided not to see
    it"
    Travis Newbury, Feb 15, 2010
    #6
  7. On Feb 15, 5:30 pm, buzzard <> wrote:
    > Travis Newbury wrote:
    > > On Feb 14, 7:50 pm, buzzard <> wrote:
    > >>> The reason people started going more with Flash is that is actually
    > >>> works on everyone's computer.
    > >>> Not on mine, it doesn't.
    > >> mine either.  I looked at dnlding it, its humongous.

    >
    > > There is a difference between "can't see it" and "decided not to see
    > > it"

    >
    > I was not claiming the 2 to be the same, Mr. Non Sequitur


    If you weren't then your post makes no sense at all based on the
    thread.

    Me: "Worked on everyone's machine"
    RF: "Not mine"
    You: "mine either I looked at dnlding it, its humongous."
    Me: "There is a difference...

    See RF said it would not work on his computer. Well, based on past
    conversations with RF, it is not a matter of IF it works, but he
    chooses it NOT to work. Then you joined in and said it did not work
    on your machine either. Then you commented that it was humongous.
    Well I had to decide if you meant Flash objects, or Flash the
    application.

    If you meant Flash objects, then I addressed that earlier stating a
    GOOD flash developer (the minority) creates small flash objects. If
    you were talking about the application then, WTF, of course it was
    HUMONGOUS it is a sophisticated development and testing environment.
    If it is too big to download, then by the DVD to install it.

    No matter which direction your mind was headed, my answer that "can
    not" and "decided not to" are two different things still stands as a
    valid statement.
    Travis Newbury, Feb 16, 2010
    #7
  8. cwdjrxyz

    rf Guest

    "buzzard" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Travis Newbury wrote:
    >> (snip)
    >> See RF said it would not work on his computer. Well, based on past
    >> conversations with RF, it is not a matter of IF it works, but he

    > I didn't read the past conversations with RF


    What Travis is complaining about is that I have flashblock installed, so
    flash does not work on my computer unless I specifically request it, and
    that's not often.

    Flash does not work on my computer because I have exercised a choice.

    It sounds like flash also does not wook on your computer because you, too,
    have exercised a choice, that of not dnlding a humongous file.

    Be it because our browsers do not support flash, flash is not installed,
    flash is blocked, flash is too bloody big to download, the reason is
    immaterial. The bottom line is that flash does not work on our computers.
    rf, Feb 17, 2010
    #8
  9. On Feb 16, 8:21 pm, "rf" <> wrote:
    > "buzzard" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > Travis Newbury wrote:
    > >> (snip)
    > >> See RF said it would not work on his computer.  Well, based on past
    > >> conversations with RF, it is not a matter of IF it works, but he

    > > I didn't read the past conversations with RF

    >
    > What Travis is complaining about is that I have flashblock installed, so
    > flash does not work on my computer unless I specifically request it, and
    > that's not often.
    >
    > Flash does not work on my computer because I have exercised a choice.
    >
    > It sounds like flash also does not wook on your computer because you, too,
    > have exercised a choice, that of not dnlding a humongous file.
    >
    > Be it because our browsers do not support flash, flash is not installed,
    > flash is blocked, flash is too bloody big to download, the reason is
    > immaterial. The bottom line is that flash does not work on our computers.


    No, it does work, you have chosen not to view it. But if there was a
    website that you absolutely HAD to go to, and there was no
    alternative, then you can turn it on, and see flash. So flash works on
    your machine, you have simply chosen not to view it. And that is
    fine. I to have Flashblock installed and use it regularly to block
    most ads, but if I run into a site I have to (want to) see Flash on,
    say, youtube, or virtually ALL video sites, not to mention virtually
    all porn sites.. Then I, just like you, can easily turn it on. So it
    is not a matter of IF it runs, but if you LET it run.

    Anyway, my point was that one of the reasons it is so much more
    popular than java is it runs on everyone's machine. And you choosing
    to not run it on your machine is irrelevant to my point.
    Travis Newbury, Feb 17, 2010
    #9
  10. cwdjrxyz

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Ed Mullen <> wrote:

    > Honestly, I cannot remember the last time I encountered a Java-required
    > site. Certainly not one I really cared about.


    When I get worried I might have made a copying or other error in
    a Sudoku, I can check to see it is solvable at:

    <http://sudoku.sourceforge.net/>

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Feb 17, 2010
    #10
  11. cwdjrxyz

    rf Guest

    "Travis Newbury" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Feb 16, 8:21 pm, "rf" <> wrote:
    > "buzzard" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > Travis Newbury wrote:
    > >> (snip)
    > >> See RF said it would not work on his computer. Well, based on past
    > >> conversations with RF, it is not a matter of IF it works, but he

    > > I didn't read the past conversations with RF

    >
    > What Travis is complaining about is that I have flashblock installed, so
    > flash does not work on my computer unless I specifically request it, and
    > that's not often.
    >
    > Flash does not work on my computer because I have exercised a choice.
    >
    > It sounds like flash also does not wook on your computer because you, too,
    > have exercised a choice, that of not dnlding a humongous file.
    >
    > Be it because our browsers do not support flash, flash is not installed,
    > flash is blocked, flash is too bloody big to download, the reason is
    > immaterial. The bottom line is that flash does not work on our computers.


    No, it does work, you have chosen not to view it. But if there was a
    website that you absolutely HAD to go to, and there was no
    alternative, then you can turn it on, and see flash. So flash works on
    your machine, you have simply chosen not to view it. And that is
    fine. I to have Flashblock installed and use it regularly to block
    most ads, but if I run into a site I have to (want to) see Flash on,
    say, youtube, or virtually ALL video sites, not to mention virtually
    all porn sites.. Then I, just like you, can easily turn it on. So it
    is not a matter of IF it runs, but if you LET it run.

    Anyway, my point was that one of the reasons it is so much more
    popular than java is it runs on everyone's machine. And you choosing
    to not run it on your machine is irrelevant to my point.

    But the point also is that it does NOT run on every machine, not if the
    flash requires the latest version of flash and that is not installed.

    And don't suggest that my 85 year old mother in law will, when prompted,
    install the latest version just to see your ad after I have forbidden her
    from installing anything on her computer.

    The author of that ad has a choice too. Present the ad using HTML which by
    definition will work or present it using flash where it is not gauranteed to
    work. The advertiser does not care how the flash didn't work. It simply
    didn't work.
    rf, Feb 17, 2010
    #11
  12. cwdjrxyz

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Ed Mullen <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    > > In article<>,
    > > Ed Mullen<> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Honestly, I cannot remember the last time I encountered a Java-required
    > >> site. Certainly not one I really cared about.

    > >
    > > When I get worried I might have made a copying or other error in
    > > a Sudoku, I can check to see it is solvable at:
    > >
    > > < >
    > >

    >
    > Sorry. Sudoku and I don't at all jibe.
    >
    > I do crosswords every day. I do words. Numbers? Yeah, I crunch them
    > for our personal budget and all.


    Just saying that I think there is a java solving app there.

    About Sudoku, it is not really about numbers, just needs 9
    different things (they could be letters, travises, universes,
    pains - as long as there were nine identifiably different types)

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Feb 17, 2010
    #12
  13. On Feb 16, 10:36 pm, "rf" <> wrote:
    > The author of that ad has a choice too. Present the ad using HTML which by
    > definition will work or present it using flash where it is not gauranteed to
    > work. The advertiser does not care how the flash didn't work. It simply
    > didn't work.


    Your decision to not view Flash is just that, your decision. But as
    bandwidth opens up all over the world and as flash, video, and
    multimedia in general become more and more accessible and prominent on
    the web, then it is not I who will be left in the dust. Different
    people like different things. You don't like flash, fine, don't like
    it. No one, including all the advertizers that use Flash, care.

    Bottom line is if the Flash ads did not increase their revenue, they
    would not use them. You and the tiny group of people not watch them
    is obviously irrelevant to the bottom line.
    Travis Newbury, Feb 17, 2010
    #13
  14. On Feb 16, 10:09 pm, Ed Mullen <> wrote:
    > Sorry.  Sudoku and I don't at all jibe.



    Ok, change of subject here... How did you fair with the Atlanta
    blizzards?
    Travis Newbury, Feb 17, 2010
    #14
  15. cwdjrxyz

    rf Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:
    > On Feb 16, 10:36 pm, "rf" <> wrote:
    >> The author of that ad has a choice too. Present the ad using HTML
    >> which by definition will work or present it using flash where it is
    >> not gauranteed to work. The advertiser does not care how the flash
    >> didn't work. It simply didn't work.

    >
    > Your decision to not view Flash is just that, your decision. But as
    > bandwidth opens up all over the world and as flash, video, and
    > multimedia in general become more and more accessible and prominent on
    > the web, then it is not I who will be left in the dust. Different
    > people like different things. You don't like flash, fine, don't like
    > it. No one, including all the advertizers that use Flash, care.
    >
    > Bottom line is if the Flash ads did not increase their revenue, they
    > would not use them. You and the tiny group of people not watch them
    > is obviously irrelevant to the bottom line.


    OK Travis. Truce time. Sort of.

    You know my feelings about flash. But it's probably not just flash in and of
    itself but rather the use to which it is put. This can be extended to any
    technology, web based or not.

    The other day I wandered over to my significant other's computer as it
    caught my eye, or rather poked me savagely in the eye with the force of
    something like a stick.

    She started bitching about this big yellow blob on the bottom right of her
    viewport that went "FLASH FLASH *look at me* FLASH FLASH *I'm an ad* FLASH
    FLASH". "Can't you turn this bloody thing off for me", she demurely
    enquired, "it's stopping me from reading the content of this damn page".
    (sorry, don't have the URL, just pick one yourself, best is from anywhere in
    ..cn).

    That is why I have flash disabled. That is now why she does as well. This
    stuff used to be done with animated gifs. That was bad enough but now, with
    flash, it can be done an order of magnitude worse.

    On the other hand there is a site I currently have displayed in a browser
    24/7. It uses flash in an admiral manner, exactly as I suspect the inventor
    intended it to be used.

    http://www.foxtel.com.au/vancouver2010/channels/tv-guide/default.htm

    Scroll down to the bit where it tells you what is currently playing.

    Very well done. Does the job nicely. Not in your face, just quietly using
    the technology to good effect.

    Pity about that stupid marquee up there under the menu bar though.
    rf, Feb 17, 2010
    #15
  16. On Feb 17, 7:04 am, "rf" <> wrote:
    > That is why I have flash disabled. That is now why she does as well. This
    > stuff used to be done with animated gifs. That was bad enough but now, with
    > flash, it can be done an order of magnitude worse.


    Your example is the exact same reason I have Flashblock turned on, and
    I completely agree Flash is misused all over the place. But, it also
    provides may benefits to the web (I would list but then it would
    start a "that's not a benefit" war...)

    Flash is not evil, some developers are. But that is not a reason to
    kill a technology just because someone abuses it.
    Travis Newbury, Feb 17, 2010
    #16
  17. cwdjrxyz

    William Gill Guest

    On 2/17/2010 7:04 AM, rf wrote:
    > Travis Newbury wrote:
    >> On Feb 16, 10:36 pm, "rf"<> wrote:
    >>> The author of that ad has a choice too. Present the ad using HTML
    >>> which by definition will work or present it using flash where it is
    >>> not gauranteed to work. The advertiser does not care how the flash
    >>> didn't work. It simply didn't work.

    >>
    >> Your decision to not view Flash is just that, your decision. But as
    >> bandwidth opens up all over the world and as flash, video, and
    >> multimedia in general become more and more accessible and prominent on
    >> the web, then it is not I who will be left in the dust. Different
    >> people like different things. You don't like flash, fine, don't like
    >> it. No one, including all the advertizers that use Flash, care.
    >>
    >> Bottom line is if the Flash ads did not increase their revenue, they
    >> would not use them. You and the tiny group of people not watch them
    >> is obviously irrelevant to the bottom line.

    >
    > OK Travis. Truce time. Sort of.
    >
    > You know my feelings about flash. But it's probably not just flash in and of
    > itself but rather the use to which it is put. This can be extended to any
    > technology, web based or not.
    >
    > The other day I wandered over to my significant other's computer as it
    > caught my eye, or rather poked me savagely in the eye with the force of
    > something like a stick.
    >
    > She started bitching about this big yellow blob on the bottom right of her
    > viewport that went "FLASH FLASH *look at me* FLASH FLASH *I'm an ad* FLASH
    > FLASH". "Can't you turn this bloody thing off for me", she demurely
    > enquired, "it's stopping me from reading the content of this damn page".
    > (sorry, don't have the URL, just pick one yourself, best is from anywhere in
    > .cn).
    >
    > That is why I have flash disabled. That is now why she does as well. This
    > stuff used to be done with animated gifs. That was bad enough but now, with
    > flash, it can be done an order of magnitude worse.
    >
    > On the other hand there is a site I currently have displayed in a browser
    > 24/7. It uses flash in an admiral manner, exactly as I suspect the inventor
    > intended it to be used.
    >
    > http://www.foxtel.com.au/vancouver2010/channels/tv-guide/default.htm
    >
    > Scroll down to the bit where it tells you what is currently playing.
    >
    > Very well done. Does the job nicely. Not in your face, just quietly using
    > the technology to good effect.
    >
    > Pity about that stupid marquee up there under the menu bar though.
    >
    >
    >
    >

    Pretty much the same thing can be said about some "pure" HTML sites
    otherwise there wouldn't be so many worst website websites. There is no
    accounting for taste (or lack thereof). If you find a way of
    legislating and regulating good taste let me know. I'd like to apply
    the concept to some of the everyday empty-headedness I encounter.

    It's not just that so many can be so clueless, that's their problem.
    it's that they can vote, that's everyone else's.
    William Gill, Feb 19, 2010
    #17
    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. Kevin Spencer
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    348
    David Waz...
    Jul 11, 2003
  2. VB Programmer
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    302
    Alvin Bruney
    Oct 21, 2003
  3. juraj
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    624
    Andrew Thompson
    Mar 2, 2007
  4. Frank Miverk
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    654
    Frank Miverk
    Apr 18, 2007
  5. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    979
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=
    Oct 14, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page