Post by thread:Microchip Web Page annoyance! (Why)

This is due to their extreme use of "very large" tables, and tables-within-tables. For some reason browsers do not like tables this large (why it would take a glorified document display program several dozen seconds to format a document on a 100+ Mhz machine is beyond me; object oriented coding perhaps? snicker). You could always use Lynx. It doesn't suffer from these kinds of problems, and is a much faster browser as well (text only of course). Or Opera, which only takes 1.5 meg of memory (whereas Netscape allocates about 15 megs, booting fresh). Let's all complain to Microchip, we can tell them to get a site like National's-- no silly marketting stuff on the front page and a blantant link for engineers. {Quote hidden}> > Hi, all. On a related topic (for once?), is anyone else having this > same problem? > > When I jump to, for example, > http://www.microchip.com/0/Lit/PICmicro/16C6X/index.htm, my browser > takes "forever" to load the web page - and loads it twice during that > process, to boot. {Happens with most similar pages, really.} > > More exact symptoms: Modem downloads the page in a pretty big hurry, > but the whole system then "just sits there forever" (30+ seconds), > flashes the page on-screen, clears the page & waits "forever" again, > then re-displays the page. > > Hit Reload: For 5 seconds the progress bar shows activity, then for > 33 seconds the on-screen clock stops {AtomClk, nice app}, no HDD > activity, no nothing, then it finally decides to display everything. > It's -obnoxious-... And it's not a modem speed problem <G> > > (Just upgraded to Netscrape 4.07 US version, under WFW 3.11 / Dos > 6.22, Pentium 133, 64 Mb EDO Ram, pretty well set up system, External > 56k USR Sportster modem, TWSK2.0B, 56k provider. Posts in the past to > uChip webmaster have not gotten responses yet.) > > Is anyone else having as large of a web page display pause as I am? > Or is it just me? If my embedded machines are turned off, I like to be > able to still look things up on the web, but this really is > frustrating... > > Mark, spam_OUTmwillisTakeThisOuTnwlink.com > Jonathan .....jclineKILLspam@spam@ee.calpoly.edu

"A blatant link for engineers." I *Like* it! <G> I agree that National's site's far nicer to visit. Thanks for the info, Jonathan (Next year I might get time to learn HTML, but more likely I'll be busy PIC-ifying an entire factory. Should pay really well at least! So much to learn, and my brain's already full, though <G>) Been looking at Opera, haven't stuck it on a machine yet but their having a 128-bit SSL browser that'll run on a 386 with 8 Mb RAM gives me the idea to use that on the engineering 486 laptops here instead of Netscape 2.02, which has, ah, "limitations", that's the word. (Almost finished upgrading those laptops to 486DX2/66 & larger HDD, still need to glue on the heatsinks & add RAM to one!) Best answer may be to get my embedded computers finished off, anyways (and use the 586-100 to view the .pdf files while programming on the 486 & editing source code on the 386 <G>) Mark Jonathan wrote: {Quote hidden}> > This is due to their extreme use of "very large" tables, and > tables-within-tables. > > For some reason browsers do not like tables this large (why it would > take a glorified document display program several dozen seconds > to format a document on a 100+ Mhz machine is beyond me; object > oriented coding perhaps? snicker). > > You could always use Lynx. It doesn't suffer from these kinds of > problems, and is a much faster browser as well (text only of > course). Or Opera, which only takes 1.5 meg of memory (whereas > Netscape allocates about 15 megs, booting fresh). > > Let's all complain to Microchip, we can tell them to get a site > like National's-- no silly marketting stuff on the front page and > a blantant link for engineers. > > > > > Hi, all. On a related topic (for once?), is anyone else having this > > same problem? > > > > When I jump to, for example, > > http://www.microchip.com/0/Lit/PICmicro/16C6X/index.htm, my browser > > takes "forever" to load the web page - and loads it twice during that > > process, to boot. {Happens with most similar pages, really.} > > > > More exact symptoms: Modem downloads the page in a pretty big hurry, > > but the whole system then "just sits there forever" (30+ seconds), > > flashes the page on-screen, clears the page & waits "forever" again, > > then re-displays the page. > > > > Hit Reload: For 5 seconds the progress bar shows activity, then for > > 33 seconds the on-screen clock stops {AtomClk, nice app}, no HDD > > activity, no nothing, then it finally decides to display everything. > > It's -obnoxious-... And it's not a modem speed problem <G> > > > > (Just upgraded to Netscrape 4.07 US version, under WFW 3.11 / Dos > > 6.22, Pentium 133, 64 Mb EDO Ram, pretty well set up system, External > > 56k USR Sportster modem, TWSK2.0B, 56k provider. Posts in the past to > > uChip webmaster have not gotten responses yet.) > > > > Is anyone else having as large of a web page display pause as I am? > > Or is it just me? If my embedded machines are turned off, I like to be > > able to still look things up on the web, but this really is > > frustrating... > > > > Mark, mwillisKILLspamnwlink.com > > > > Jonathan > .....jclineKILLspam.....ee.calpoly.edu

Mark Willis wrote: > (Next year I might get time to learn HTML, but more likely I'll be busy > PIC-ifying an entire factory. Should pay really well at least! So > much to learn, and my brain's already full, though <G>) Seems like you've got the basics of HTML already, Mark, with that grin tag. HTML is really easy to write, because; <ul> <li> you can do it with a plain text editor, <li> you can immediately test it offline by opening up the file with a web browser (or two), <li> the tags actually mean something, like UL for un-numbered list, and LI for list item, P for paragraph, and HR for horizontal line, <li> you can still read the text after you have written it, <li> you can add as much spacing as you like and it gets ignored, <li> you can have a look at how other people do it and simply immitate. </ul> There's heaps more on writing HTML for newbies. Mostly on the web. <hr> -- James Cameron (EraseMEcameronspam_OUTTakeThisOuTstl.dec.com) Digital Equipment Corporation (Australia) Pty. Ltd. A.C.N. 000 446 800

James Cameron wrote: {Quote hidden}> > Mark Willis wrote: > > (Next year I might get time to learn HTML, but more likely I'll be busy > > PIC-ifying an entire factory. Should pay really well at least! So > > much to learn, and my brain's already full, though <G>) > > Seems like you've got the basics of HTML already, Mark, with that grin > tag. > > HTML is really easy to write, because; > > <ul> > <li> you can do it with a plain text editor, > > <li> you can immediately test it offline by opening up the file with a > web browser (or two), > > <li> the tags actually mean something, like UL for un-numbered list, > and LI for list item, P for paragraph, and HR for horizontal > line, > > <li> you can still read the text after you have written it, > > <li> you can add as much spacing as you like and it gets ignored, > > <li> you can have a look at how other people do it and simply > immitate. > </ul> > > There's heaps more on writing HTML for newbies. Mostly on the web. > <hr> > > -- > James Cameron (cameronspam_OUTstl.dec.com) > Digital Equipment Corporation (Australia) Pty. Ltd. A.C.N. 000 446 800 There's a difference between being able to look up stuff quickly in a dictionary, & holding it in L2 cache, let's say, James <G> I figure I can fake it, but I prefer to finesse things <G> Mark, @spam@mwillisKILLspamnwlink.com, another PIC-y perfectionist micro-optimizer <G>

Jonathan writes: >You could always use Lynx. It doesn't suffer from these kinds of >problems, and is a much faster browser as well (text only of >course). Yes and no. I am the one who was whining several weeks ago about trying to download the data sheet PDF's from the Microchip web site and just plain getting stuck in a screen that wouldn't let me go any further. Lynx usually works perfectly on sites that are rather generic and chokes on those that are too closely intertwined with Micro$oftisms or Netscapisms. When it comes to information transfer, generic may not be as flashy, but most of us are hitting the site to get information and not to be entertained with dubious eye candy. Martin McCormick WB5AGZ Stillwater, OK OSU Center for Computing and Information Services Data Communications Group