Searching \ for '[AD] Official Launch of OBD Solutions Website' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=official+launch
Search entire site for: 'Official Launch of OBD Solutions Website'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[AD] Official Launch of OBD Solutions Website'
2010\10\29@130949 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
OBD Solutions is a new site that represents the full spectrum of products and services provided by our company:

http://www.obdsol.com/

The content may still be rough around the edges. Comments/critiques welcome, and much appreciated.


======

OBD Solutions is the leading provider of on-board diagnostics solutions.
We specialize in the design, engineering, and manufacturing of the following products:

* OBD cables
* OBD interfaces
* OBD software
* Scan Tools
* OBD modules
* OBD simulators
* OBD development tools

Companies and organizations that use our products and services include the following industries:

* Fleet Management
* Vehicle Emissions Inspection/Management (I/M)
* Vehicle Data Collection
* Vehicle Tracking
* Telematics
* Scan Tool Manufacturers
* GPS Device Manufacturers
* Auto Insurance/Driver Safety

Our expertise covers all on-board diagnostic systems and protocols, including

* Chrysler CCP / XCP
* Ford UBP
* GMLAN
* GM SWCAN
* GM UART
*  ISO 9141
*  ISO 14229
*  ISO 14230
*  ISO 15765
*  ISO 11898
*  SAE J1708
*  SAE J1850
*  SAE J1939

Over the years, we developed solutions that interface with everything from personal computers, to satellite modems, to smart phones. OBD interfaces can be connected to your device via UART, RS-232, USB, Bluetooth, WiFi, or virtually any other wired or wireless connection medium.

======

2010\10\29@180015 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Vitaliy wrote:
> OBD Solutions is a new site that represents the full spectrum of
> products and services provided by our company:
>
> http://www.obdsol.com/
>
> The content may still be rough around the edges. Comments/critiques
> welcome, and much appreciated.

Hmm, I think it could use some work.  It took something like 15 seconds to
load, mostly I think so that it can show the annoying flash pictures.  I was
connected via a 300-something Kbit/second DSL link at the time.

I don't think the result looked in my browser as you intended it.  I put a
screen shot at http://www.embedinc.com/temp/obd.jpg so you can see what I
saw.  The bar with the funny looking icons in the top left corner is
obscuring the title banner.  The horizontal gray bar part way down the page
is half behind the first line of text.  The flashing (that's rather annoying
by the way) images were cut off at the right even though I think my browswer
window was plenty wide.  It looks like it maybe was supposed to be centered
left to right?  I have no idea what the 7 little buttons(?) that sortof look
like water drop spashes are supposed to tell me, what if anything they might
do for me, or why the left one looks different.

>From what little I could see of the pictures, they look very nice, and the
overall scheme looks attractive but not cluttered.  I didn't go past this
first page or try looking around any though.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

2010\10\29@184150 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
> I don't think the result looked in my browser as you intended it.  I put a
> screen shot at http://www.embedinc.com/temp/obd.jpg so you can see what I
> saw.

What version of Internet Explorer is this? Are you still using IE 5?

The site renders correctly in the latest versions of Internet Explorer, FireFox, Chrome, and even Safari on my iPhone.


> The flashing (that's rather annoying
> by the way) images

They're not supposed to be flashing, it's a slider (rotating banner).


> I have no idea what the 7 little buttons(?) that sortof look
> like water drop spashes are supposed to tell me, what if anything they
> might
> do for me, or why the left one looks different.

The buttons correspond to the different slides, they're a way to navigate between the slides.


Thank you for the feedback. We're looking into the loading speed issue, but unless other people are having similar issues with rendering, I'm afraid you're just going to have to get on with the times. ;-)

Vitaliy

2010\10\29@184959 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
part 1 77 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" (decoded quoted-printable)

Attachment: iPhone screenshot

part 2 26897 bytes content-type:image/jpeg; name="obdsol_iphone_screenshot.jpg" (decode)


part 3 181 bytes content-type:text/plain; name="ATT00001.txt"
(decoded base64)

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2010\10\30@040340 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Hi Vitaly,

I agree with Olin that is a bit slow, however, I had a faster connection and
did the job (few moments and the page was on screen). With the Chrome
browser on Mac it displayed the page correctly. I think generally it is nice
work.

Few comments if you allow me:

- There is no 'Home' button so there is no way from any of the pages to go
back to the very beginning (for example if I want to see that flash intro
again...)

- At the moment there is no price and delivery info - aka the site does not
seem to work as a web shop (maybe that the idea, but I think you should
consider doing that)

- A page of reference customers would be nice, so we could see how nice
tools they could produce using your chips and modules

- Customer review would be nice too

- Maybe a forum would be a good idea where people could discuss about your
product, how to implement this or that and about ODBC in general

Tamas


On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:49 PM, Vitaliy <spam_OUTpiclistTakeThisOuTspammaksimov.org> wrote:

> Attachment: iPhone screenshot
>

2010\10\30@042149 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face
On 30/10/2010 09:03, Tamas Rudnai wrote:
> Hi Vitaly,
>
> I agree with Olin that is a bit slow, however, I had a faster connection and
> did the job (few moments and the page was on screen). With the Chrome
> browser on Mac it displayed the page correctly. I think generally it is nice
> work.

I agree with the slow part here too - took around 10 seconds to load on Chrome with a 2Mb connection.
Aside from that though, the page looks pretty good and everything displayed correctly/buttons worked.

Didn't poke around any further (lots to do..) so that's about it for my input..

2010\10\30@082647 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Vitaliy wrote:
> What version of Internet Explorer is this? Are you still using IE 5?

I just checked, and its version 6.0.2800.1106 according to HELP ABOUT.  One
nice thing about this older version is that it is more keystroke friendly
than newer ones, and you can get rid of at least one bar at the top of the
window.  For example, CTRL-TAB reliably gets you to where you can type a new
URL.  That doesn't work in newer versions and there is always a toolbar or
something you can't get rid of that just eats up pixels.

That may be a old version, but unless what I saw is due to a outright bug in
that version, I don't see why that matters.  There is no point using newer
features just because you can.  There is really nothing you need to display
that even a old browser shoudn't be able to render reasonably.

> The buttons correspond to the different slides, they're a way to
> navigate between the slides.

Why do I need these "slides" in the first place?  Moving stuff on a web page
is annoying as it is distracting when trying to read something else.
Everything I can get by selecting a "slide" should be available otherwise
anyway.  If these things are trying to show cables, gizmos, and other
things, you can have small clickable static pictures of each.

Again, it seems your designers did phancy just because they could, and
probably think it's cool.  Web designers seem to rarely consider what it's
like to be on the other end of their creations.  Most of what they think is
cool, other people think is annoying.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

2010\10\30@083943 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
 On 30/10/2010 13:27, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Vitaliy wrote:
>> What version of Internet Explorer is this? Are you still using IE 5?
> I just checked, and its version 6.0.2800.1106 according to HELP ABOUT.  One
> nice thing about this older version is that it is more keystroke friendly
> than newer ones, and you can get rid of at least one bar at the top of the
> window.  For example, CTRL-TAB reliably gets you to where you can type a new
> URL.  That doesn't work in newer versions and there is always a toolbar or
> something you can't get rid of that just eats up pixels.
Almost the worst, most insecure and least compliant browser available. Even Microsoft recommends IE6.xx should not be used at all any more.

Or are you joking

2010\10\30@090456 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face
On 30/10/2010 13:27, Olin Lathrop wrote:
>
> Again, it seems your designers did phancy just because they could, and
> probably think it's cool.  Web designers seem to rarely consider what it's
> like to be on the other end of their creations.  Most of what they think is
> cool, other people think is annoying.
>

I think as web pages go, this is pretty normal and not too fancy. I liked the "slides" as they save space on the page. With the issue of "moving stuff", the only thing "moving" is the slides changing, and as long as there isn't much else going on (ads, other flashing things etc) I don't find it distracting at all.
I guess it would be nice to be able to support every browser out there, but 99% of people are *probably* going to be using something better than IE6. Of course it depends on what you are trying to achieve, you could restrict your pages to plain HTML and possibly a small picture or two with no active content.

Sometimes I wish things wouldn't move so quickly and I could stick with stuff which works/I know, so I see where Olin is going - I changed from the latest IE to Chrome (much faster and simpler - performs the main requirement of browsing the web, which is pretty much all I want) because of the screen being taken up with loads of bars/features of which I needed hardly any of, and it was so sluggish even on a recently purchased Sony laptop. I dislike bloatware in general and using "features" just because you can, but I don't think this page is really very guilty of that.
In the long run (in my experience) it usually saves hassle to just keep stuff like browsers, mail clients etc updated to within the last few versions.

2010\10\30@101758 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Tamas Rudnai wrote:
> - Customer review would be nice too

Why?  I see those on some web site and always consider them content free and
a waste of space.  Of course you're only going to see good reviews, so there
is no information in them.  How do you know that 99% of customers are pissed
off and you're reading reviews from the last 1%?


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

2010\10\30@101943 by Mark Rages

face picon face
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Olin Lathrop <.....olin_piclistKILLspamspam@spam@embedinc.com> wrote:
> That may be a old version, but unless what I saw is due to a outright bug in
> that version, I don't see why that matters.


IE6 has some nasty rendering bugs.  The only reason it appears to work
is that designers make specific hacks and workarounds for IE6 bugs.
Web guys are rejoicing as it finally falls in market share.

Vitaly, consider adding this to the site to help IE6 users: http://ie6update.com

Regards,
Mark
markrages@gmail
-- Mark Rages, Engineer
Midwest Telecine LLC
markragesspamKILLspammidwesttelecine.co

2010\10\30@132701 by jim

flavicon
face
Olin,

Quote... Why?  I see those on some web site and always consider them content
free and
a waste of space.  
Maybe you see them as "Content free and a waste of space", but not everyone
thinks as you do.

Quote... Of course you're only going to see good reviews, so there
is no information in them.  How do you know that 99% of customers are pissed
off and you're reading reviews from the last 1%?

How do you know you aren't reading 99% of the satisfied customers reviews,
and only 1% are pissed off?
There are people who might need just a little bit more assurance about a
product to tip the scale in favor of them
buying that product, and the reviews contain that extra bit of assurance. In
that case, there is information in them.  
Bottom line...It is for the webmaster to decide what is and isn't included
as information and/or content on the site.
If the includes customer reviews, then so be it.   However, I do agree that
it is possible that only good reviews could
be posted on the site.  And with that said, maybe all reviews should be
included so a better overall picture of satisfaction
can be garnered from the site.

And before you come back and say I have just contradicted myself, I'll tell
you now that I haven't.  I still believe there
Is value in a customer feedback page.  I just think it would be even more
valuable if as you postulated above that you are
Possibly seeing a very one sided picture.  But I believe that in most
instances, this is not the case.

Regards,

Jim



{Original Message removed}

2010\10\30@142004 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
jim wrote:
> How do you know that 99% of customers are
> pissed off and you're reading reviews from the last 1%?
>
> How do you know you aren't reading 99% of the satisfied customers
> reviews, and only 1% are pissed off?

Exactly, you don't.  In other words, there is no information in a
manufacturer posting a good review on their web site.

> There are people who might need just a little bit more assurance
> about a product to tip the scale in favor of them
> buying that product, and the reviews contain that extra bit of
> assurance.

Then they're idiots if a likely biased, selected, or even fraudulent review
sways their opinion.

> In that case, there is information in them.

No, they only think there is.

Reviews from reputable third parties can contain useful information.
However, I wouldn't want to see such a review right on a company's web site
since it can't be trusted there.  Providing links to independent third party
reviews can provide some information.  Of course one has to assume that such
references are selected to be the good ones, but it can be something.

If you really want reviews, you're much better off searching the web for
them yourself and then making your own judgement as to how reliable and
unbiased each source is.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

2010\10\30@162333 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Olin Lathrop <.....olin_piclistKILLspamspam.....embedinc.com>wrote:

> Tamas Rudnai wrote:
> > - Customer review would be nice too
>
> Why?  I see those on some web site and always consider them content free
> and
> a waste of space.  Of course you're only going to see good reviews, so
> there
> is no information in them.  How do you know that 99% of customers are
> pissed
> off and you're reading reviews from the last 1%?
>

My trick is that I always read the compliments first :-) But actually you
have a valid point here, it is different on a site like Amazon, where they
have products from many different vendors - as opposed to one vendor
offering their own stuff only. Have to back up with this one.

Thanks,
Tamas



>
>
> ********************************************************************
> Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
> (978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
>

2010\10\30@174747 by jim

flavicon
face
Okay, if you say so.

-----Original Message-----
From: EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmit.edu [piclist-bouncesspamspam_OUTmit.edu] On Behalf Of
Olin Lathrop
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 1:21 PM
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [AD] Official Launch of OBD Solutions Website

jim wrote:
> How do you know that 99% of customers are
> pissed off and you're reading reviews from the last 1%?
>
> How do you know you aren't reading 99% of the satisfied customers
> reviews, and only 1% are pissed off?

Exactly, you don't.  In other words, there is no information in a
manufacturer posting a good review on their web site.

> There are people who might need just a little bit more assurance
> about a product to tip the scale in favor of them
> buying that product, and the reviews contain that extra bit of
> assurance.

Then they're idiots if a likely biased, selected, or even fraudulent review
sways their opinion.

> In that case, there is information in them.

No, they only think there is.

Reviews from reputable third parties can contain useful information.
However, I wouldn't want to see such a review right on a company's web site
since it can't be trusted there.  Providing links to independent third party
reviews can provide some information.  Of course one has to assume that such
references are selected to be the good ones, but it can be something.

If you really want reviews, you're much better off searching the web for
them yourself and then making your own judgement as to how reliable and
unbiased each source is.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

2010\10\30@210814 by PICdude

flavicon
face
From my IT days, it was "well known" (I don't have a source to cite),  that people generally go out of their way to call/post/state an  opinion on a product or service if they have a complaint (of almost  any level) or if they have a very very positive feeling towards it.   Average to basically-happy does not usually get a mention unless  there's another incentive to encourage a consumer to voice their  opinion (I'm thinking coupons, etc).  It has been well accepted that  the average level of satisfaction of all customer-service contacts are  a very bad indicator of the actual average level of satisfaction.

I've always suspected this to be true of online reviews and do  generally use those comments to decide if to purchase a product.  Yes,  I do expect some level of false reviews, but I'd expect that any  deceitful comments would probably be from the sellers or their  affiliates stating something positive, and I'd expect a lot fewer  reasons for posting negative comments.  Hence, when I look up reviews,  I really only read the negative reviews.  And I generally put more  weight on what's stated as an occurance/incident/fact vs. an opinion.   No, not a perfect statistic, but very useful still IMO, especially  when compared against reviews of similar items on the same website.

Cheers,
-Neil.



Quoting jim <@spam@jimKILLspamspamjpes.com>:

> Okay, if you say so.
>
> {Original Message removed}

2010\10\31@163028 by Peter Loron

flavicon
face
IE6 is, as others have mentioned, well past its sell-by date. It has numerous security issues, and is by far the least standards compliant browser still in significant use. Stupefying amounts of time are spent working around the broken standards support in IE6 (and IE7 for that matter).  This gives those of us in the web software business ulcers and hair loss.

Even if you don't care about the new features, updating to a more current version will help protect you from vulnerabilities that can be exploited to attack your computer.

Please update your browser.

-Pete

On Oct 30, 2010, at 5:27 AM, Olin Lathrop wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> -

2010\10\31@165316 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Tamas Rudnai wrote:
> I agree with Olin that is a bit slow, however, I had a faster connection
> and
> did the job (few moments and the page was on screen). With the Chrome
> browser on Mac it displayed the page correctly. I think generally it is
> nice
> work.
>
> Few comments if you allow me:
>
> - There is no 'Home' button so there is no way from any of the pages to go
> back to the very beginning (for example if I want to see that flash intro
> again...)

I told the web designer that a "home" link was unnecessary, since people are used to clicking on the company logo to get back to the homepage. I was wrong, so the the link is back. :)


> - At the moment there is no price and delivery info - aka the site does
> not
> seem to work as a web shop (maybe that the idea, but I think you should
> consider doing that)

The site was purposedly designed as an information portal, rather than a web shop. The products that you can buy, are available from our other sites (http://www.scantool.net and http://www.obd2cables.com).


> - A page of reference customers would be nice, so we could see how nice
> tools they could produce using your chips and modules

Working on it.


> - Customer review would be nice too

Ditto.


> - Maybe a forum would be a good idea where people could discuss about your
> product, how to implement this or that and about ODBC in general

We will definitely consider it. :)

Vitaliy

2010\10\31@170239 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Vitaliy <KILLspampiclistKILLspamspammaksimov.org> wrote:

> > - Maybe a forum would be a good idea where people could discuss about
> your
> > product, how to implement this or that and about ODBC in general
>
> We will definitely consider it. :)
>

Just realised I wrote ODBC as opposed to OBD - That is because of my silly
software engineer head :-)

Tamas



>
> Vitaliy
>
>

2010\10\31@171939 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
> That may be a old version, but unless what I saw is due to a outright bug
> in
> that version, I don't see why that matters.  There is no point using newer
> features just because you can.  There is really nothing you need to
> display
> that even a old browser shoudn't be able to render reasonably.

I agree with this in general, however the economics of the situation are against it. Only about 4% of visitors still use IE6, and it would cost more to make the site compatible with IE6 than it took to develop it originally. The ratio may soon change in favor of IE6 users.


>> The buttons correspond to the different slides, they're a way to
>> navigate between the slides.
>
> Why do I need these "slides" in the first place?  Moving stuff on a web
> page
> is annoying as it is distracting when trying to read something else.
> Everything I can get by selecting a "slide" should be available otherwise
> anyway.  If these things are trying to show cables, gizmos, and other
> things, you can have small clickable static pictures of each.

Apple is not God, but they are famous for designing products that are simple, stylish, and user friendly. Take a look at this page:

http://www.apple.com/iphone/

There are different ways to present the same information, and one can combine them to make communication more effective. A slide may catch your eye while you are browsing the menu. It is a more efficient use of the scarce first screen real estate than a static banner.

> Again, it seems your designers did phancy just because they could, and
> probably think it's cool.  Web designers seem to rarely consider what it's
> like to be on the other end of their creations.  Most of what they think
> is
> cool, other people think is annoying.

The buck stops with me. :)  I agreed with the designer that the slideshow was appropriate for the homepage (and yes, "cool").

Vitaliy

2010\10\31@172317 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Mark Rages wrote:
>> That may be a old version, but unless what I saw is due to a outright bug
>> in
>> that version, I don't see why that matters.
>
>
> IE6 has some nasty rendering bugs.  The only reason it appears to work
> is that designers make specific hacks and workarounds for IE6 bugs.
> Web guys are rejoicing as it finally falls in market share.
>
> Vitaly, consider adding this to the site to help IE6 users:
> http://ie6update.com

Ha, clever! :-P

2010\10\31@193535 by Peter Loron

flavicon
face
I don't like tricking people into updating their browsers...unfortunately some companies still have IE6-only apps that they refuse to update.

However, when possible I do put redirects in many of my sites that send people using IE6 to a page that tells them to update and provides links to newer IE versions as well as Chrome, Firefox, etc. I don't have time to waste writing for IE6.

-Pete

On Oct 31, 2010, at 2:21 PM, Vitaliy wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> -

2010\10\31@204920 by Jim Franklin

flavicon
face
I've just spent the last 8 months re-writing an old Windows app as a web app
for my employer. We're a retail company and with 200+ stores, each with 4 or
so pc's the updating of the system was a bind.
I had a fairly open spec; along the lines of "make it like the old one, but
better and web based". I used ASP.NET (C#) and decided upon a minimum spec
of IE7 as that was the most recent live version in the field.

The app does look "ok" on IE6, but the formatting is a bit "interesting".

-Jim

{Original Message removed}


'[AD] Official Launch of OBD Solutions Website'
2010\11\01@074617 by Olin Lathrop
face picon face
Vitaliy wrote:
> I told the web designer that a "home" link was unnecessary, since
> people are used to clicking on the company logo to get back to the
> homepage.

They are?  That's the first I heard of it.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

2010\11\01@075227 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Vitaliy wrote:
> I agree with this in general, however the economics of the situation
> are against it. Only about 4% of visitors still use IE6, and it would
> cost more to make the site compatible with IE6 than it took to
> develop it originally.

I wasn't aware of this, but also don't understand why it's so.  If only 4%
use IE6 and it would require special development, then I agree you should
ignore it.  But IE6 does work on basic features, so this means you are
trying to use something more advanced.  Do you really need it, or is it
fluff?  Remember that when web designers think it's cool, that means it's
annoying to users.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

2010\11\01@082605 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Olin Lathrop <RemoveMEolin_piclistTakeThisOuTspamembedinc.com>wrote:

> ignore it.  But IE6 does work on basic features, so this means you are
> trying to use something more advanced.  Do you really need it, or is it
> fluff?  Remember that when web designers think it's cool, that means it's
> annoying to users.
>

FYI: Browser incompatibility sometimes means that the browser does not
display the page in the same way as expected, but still can see the same
content. For example a text box at the bottom of the page instead of the
left hand side. Sometimes pages are full of if-else conditions to adopt the
same thing for different browsers so all of them (or majority of them) could
display it pretty much the same way.

This is because of two things:

1. HTML was never meant to be a publication platform, only a hierarchical
text language.

2. Different browsers implementing the HTML rendering in a different way.
Some of them are even inventing non-standard HTML elements (mostly IE).

But yes, if you do the most simple thing, (only text and simple images) then
probably you will never face of problems, but then you loose interactivity,
no fancy menu system, nicely placed blocks on the page etc. Overall then the
page looks oldish and that might not good in terms of marketing.

Tamas



>
>
> ********************************************************************
> Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
> (978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
>

2010\11\01@083413 by Olin Lathrop

face picon face
Tamas Rudnai wrote:
> no fancy menu system, nicely placed blocks on the page etc.

Having less phancy menu systems and fewer needless blocks sounds great.
Where do I sign up?  Oh, wait, I already did.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000

2010\11\01@101445 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Sat, 2010-10-30 at 08:27 -0400, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Vitaliy wrote:
> > What version of Internet Explorer is this? Are you still using IE 5?
>
> I just checked, and its version 6.0.2800.1106 according to HELP ABOUT.  One
> nice thing about this older version is that it is more keystroke friendly
> than newer ones, and you can get rid of at least one bar at the top of the
> window.  For example, CTRL-TAB reliably gets you to where you can type a new
> URL.  That doesn't work in newer versions and there is always a toolbar or
> something you can't get rid of that just eats up pixels.
>
> That may be a old version, but unless what I saw is due to a outright bug in
> that version, I don't see why that matters.  There is no point using newer
> features just because you can.  There is really nothing you need to display
> that even a old browser shoudn't be able to render reasonably.

Do you expect the latest version of a website to support lynx too?

Sorry Olin, IE6 was out of date the first day it came out. It put the
world wide web back YEARS due to it's insane level of bugginess, level
of non-compliance to standards and just horrible security decisions.

MS THEMSELVES don't want people using IE6.

Use Chrome, it's very minimalistic, supports a TON of keyboard
shortcuts, and is a browser that actually works the way it should.

2010\11\01@115027 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 06:53 -0500, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Vitaliy wrote:
> > I agree with this in general, however the economics of the situation
> > are against it. Only about 4% of visitors still use IE6, and it would
> > cost more to make the site compatible with IE6 than it took to
> > develop it originally.
>
> I wasn't aware of this, but also don't understand why it's so.  If only 4%
> use IE6 and it would require special development, then I agree you should
> ignore it.  But IE6 does work on basic features, so this means you are
> trying to use something more advanced.  Do you really need it, or is it
> fluff?  Remember that when web designers think it's cool, that means it's
> annoying to users.

IE6 has ALOT of rendering bugs for even the simplest features of HTML.

Sites that "look right" on IE6 either got lucky, or had a branch of
development specifically targeting IE6. It was common to have to
basically write a web site twice, once for IE6 and again for all the
other browsers that were FAR more standards compliant. IE6 cost
companies alot of money in duplication of design efforts.

Yes, you can write a web page using the most simple form of HTML and it
will (probably) render properly in IE6 (come to think of it, even adding
simple images can have issues with IE6, so might not be able to have
those either), but trust me, you won't like the look of it very much.

TTYL

2010\11\01@122004 by Carl Denk

flavicon
face

I have been a fan of Firefox for some years, but Microsoft devious ways is an issue. There are some pages that just don't work with Firefox, but one needs IE to work with the page. I am far from an expert in the area, but the best I can determine, the pages are authored with Microsoft software, or are a Microsoft application that do not conform to the standards, inject errors that IE is able to handle, forcing the use of IE. 2 wrongs = right. :~(

Also current versions Firefox handles some pages differently with Win XP (SP2 or SP3) and Ubuntu 9.10. This is with an ATI HD2400 video card, but have same results with other ATI cards

2010\11\01@122248 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face
On 01/11/2010 12:34, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Tamas Rudnai wrote:
>> no fancy menu system, nicely placed blocks on the page etc.
> Having less phancy menu systems and fewer needless blocks sounds great.
> Where do I sign up?  Oh, wait, I already did.
>
>
> ********************************************************************
> Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
> (978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

Sometimes I miss the old BBS that were pretty fast over a 19200 (or less) link.
Of course I enjoy the progress and things looking better etc, but I do wish developers (in general) would let folk take advantage of their new fancy PC for a bit longer before they slow it down with all manner of unecessary clever tricks. I imagine how quick a quad core Pc really could be if things were written with speed in mind..
It's never going to be that way though, as most people are not thinking like engineers, who are usually  more interested in content and efficiency - they like to show off their new graphics and media capabilites, nothing wrong with that, just different needs, and the largest percentage will usually get their way.
 I guess I'll just have to keep on buying a new faster PC every 12 months if I want to keep on using a few programs at once (on windows - I may go back and try linux on one of my other latops though)
Still keep meaning to set up a multi monitor thing with VNC too, but not got round to it yet. Main reason is I like to refer to datasheets or other info whilst doing stuff - has anyone tried one of those Kindle things  with the e-ink display yet? I saw the new one and it did look pretty good at a decent price, so I was a bit tempted.

2010\11\01@123323 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Oli Glaser <spamBeGoneoli.glaserspamBeGonespamtalktalk.net> wrote:

> has anyone tried one of those Kindle
> things  with the e-ink display yet? I saw the new one and it did look
> pretty good at a decent price, so I was a bit tempted.
>

I have only played with it, and is very nice! The e-ink is very sharp and
easy to read, and it seems PDF is handled well - at least with the docs I
have tried...

In the other hand while working I would prefer computer for reading the doc
as it is faster in searching and turning pages. Kindle is very good for
reading articles and literature though and better for your eyes I think.

Tamas




>
>

2010\11\01@125457 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
 On 01/11/2010 16:20, Carl Denk wrote:
> I have been a fan of Firefox for some years, but Microsoft devious ways
> is an issue. There are some pages that just don't work with Firefox, but
> one needs IE to work with the page. I am far from an expert in the area,
> but the best I can determine, the pages are authored with Microsoft
> software, or are a Microsoft application that do not conform to the
> standards, inject errors that IE is able to handle, forcing the use of
> IE. 2 wrongs = right. :~(

If you right click to copy & paste text on uploaded MS Frontpage or some MS Word HTML exports the browser hangs.

MS application generated HTML is truly hideous, hence MS app "sanitise" paste button in Wordpress WYSIWG editor.
Also I have MS Office and Open Office (or whatever it's called). If I out of laziness want HTML from Word/Excel/Powerpoint I open the file in OO and saveas HTML with it instead of MS
Apart from horribly non-standard, MS generated HTML is unbelievably bloated.   .
> Also current versions Firefox handles some pages differently with Win XP
> (SP2 or SP3) and Ubuntu 9.10. This is with an ATI HD2400 video card, but
> have same results with other ATI cards.
I use ubuntu  for a number of years and run the April 2010 LTS version (forget which cute animal) and XP SP3, not noticed a difference

2010\11\01@130211 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
 On 01/11/2010 16:22, Oli Glaser wrote:
>    I guess I'll just have to keep on buying a new faster PC every 12
> months if I want to keep on using a few programs at once (on windows - I
> may go back and try linux on one of my other latops though)

No need. My 1.8GHz P4 Laptop is 8.5 years old and faster than most netbooks. Faster than quite a few laptops, except now it's 32M GEforce 4 Graphics is suitable for newer games, though CIV IV does work.

 Only high end Gamer machines etc with insane graphics cards get much faster each year, and only really on specialist shader support etc.

Win7 is nearly as good as XP SP3, but not quite, hence plenty small netbooks are still XP. Much better than Vista.

The last two Ubuntu versions run faster than Win 2000 on the 10 year old PIII laptop 450MHz and 128M RAM. Previous versions slower.

2010\11\01@142048 by Oli Glaser

flavicon
face
On 01/11/2010 17:01, Michael Watterson wrote:
>    On 01/11/2010 16:22, Oli Glaser wrote:
>>     I guess I'll just have to keep on buying a new faster PC every 12
>> months if I want to keep on using a few programs at once (on windows - I
>> may go back and try linux on one of my other latops though)
> No need. My 1.8GHz P4 Laptop is 8.5 years old and faster than most
> netbooks. Faster than quite a few laptops, except now it's 32M GEforce 4
> Graphics is suitable for newer games, though CIV IV does work.
>
>    Only high end Gamer machines etc with insane graphics cards get much
> faster each year, and only really on specialist shader support etc.
>
> Win7 is nearly as good as XP SP3, but not quite, hence plenty small
> netbooks are still XP. Much better than Vista.
>
> The last two Ubuntu versions run faster than Win 2000 on the 10 year old
> PIII laptop 450MHz and 128M RAM. Previous versions slower.
>

Maybe it's just Vista itself that's bugging me most then - I find it okay (the user account control really annoys me but I live with it), but it seems a lot more sluggish than XP, which I really liked and have on my workroom PC.

Is it worth upgrading to Win7? From what I hear it seems people are genrally positive about it. I'm only interested in speed really, with Vista I have all the graphics enhancements turned off as it performs a lot better - the graphics card in my main laptop is not that good (sony vaio 2 Ghz dual core) so it's the weak link in the machine (no RAM of it's own, standard ATI thing)
I guess if a 1.8 Ghz P4 is working for you then you must be running different stuff to me or splitting software over a few machines - I tend to try and use one machine for everything and have many apps open at once (I have about 8 open now, including MPLAB, Chrome, Thunderbird, Foxit, LTSPice, VIsual Studio etc)
I don't think there is any other option than to run a fast machine if you want these capabilites really - I could not do this on my 1.5 (I think, or 1.8) Ghz XP laptop, it only manages around 2 or 3 large apps before slowing down noticably. Of course it's not just the processor, there's the RAM, FSB etc etc. I built a 3GHz P4 machine from scratch around 6 yrs ago for use in my recording studio (decent sound processing needs similar grunt to high end gaming) I bet would still beat this machine, might try it out a some point.
I general I'm pretty happy with my setup at the moment but it never stays that way for too long thanks to speedy advancements and the latest fancy offerings from MS and others.. :-)



2010\11\01@142918 by Peter Loron

flavicon
face
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 06:53 -0500, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Vitaliy wrote:
> > I agree with this in general, however the economics of the situation
> > are against it. Only about 4% of visitors still use IE6, and it would
> > cost more to make the site compatible with IE6 than it took to
> > develop it originally.
>
> I wasn't aware of this, but also don't understand why it's so.  If only 4%
> use IE6 and it would require special development, then I agree you should
> ignore it.  But IE6 does work on basic features, so this means you are
> trying to use something more advanced.  Do you really need it, or is it
> fluff?  Remember that when web designers think it's cool, that means it's
> annoying to users.

There are certainly a lot of poor web designs out there. And, as you
say, many things are put in simply because the uneducated customer or
"designer" thinks it is cool.

The problem with IE6 (and IE7 to a lesser extent) is that it is so
non-compliant with standards that to make a site with anything other
than the most simplistic design, you need to have a copious amount of
code and design work that is _just_ for IE6. It is that broken.

-Pete

2010\11\01@151813 by Michael Watterson

face picon face
 On 01/11/2010 18:20, Oli Glaser wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I haved  use Eagle, JALedit, MPLAB, MS Office, Thunderbird, Firefox, Foxit (pdfs) a 1600x1200 screen, sometimes an external 1600x1200 at same time
AADE, Spice and Scila

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2010 , 2011 only
- Today
- New search...