sites opera and firefox SUCK at loading

K

klowngoblin

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 28, 2001
Messages
1,087
just compiling a list of sites, maybe they all have something in common?

http://bestbuy.ca/home.asp#
http://www.memoryexpress.com/
http://www.tigerdirect.ca (try to run thru the pictures, you CANT!, opera related)
http://www.etccomputer.ca (doesn't draw some text right)
http://www.computerrack.ca/ (opera related)
http://spaces.msn.com (neither will load the picture previews properly)

opera is shit, and you have to pay for it too.. peice of crap

operasucks.jpg
 
Holy shit Opera uses a lot of RAM. :eek:

The problem with some sites is that they are not W3C compliant. Basically, its a site with poorly written HTML, made with IE in mind.

Example;
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=h...automatically)&doctype=(detect+automatically)

There was a link mosin has posted where you can submit to the webmasters of the sites complaints about it not being W3C compliant. Run a search for it and you should be able to find it, if not he'll probably chime in with it.

In this day and age there aren't many non-compliant sites out there, but they are few and far in between.
 
Which version of Opera are you using? I'm running 7.6 preview on this machine and not only did every one of those sites (Couldn't check BestBuy due to Websense) load normally and have full functionality but Opera only used around 30k of memory. ***EDIT - 30,000k (still nowhere near the 256,000 shown in that pic)
 
Tangent said:
but Opera only used around 30k of memory.
Click to expand...


bull$]-[!T

30K? try adding 2 more 0s to that and I'd believe it..
3,000 k maybe but even that's a bit low.



Opera is taking 17,036 k for me right now.
 
Whoops, my bad. :eek: ~30,000k. In any case it's a whole hell of a lot lower than the over 256,000k the original poster's is using...
 
CBR said:
The problem with some sites is that they are not W3C compliant. Basically, its a site with poorly written HTML, made with IE in mind.
Click to expand...

you mean the other browsers are not IE compliant. Why would you make your site accessible for the lowest common denominator?
 
The code on every one of those sites is complete crap. One of them even uses frames.....

I dont know if any of you are familiar with W3C standards, but look at it like this. If you wrote a program for windows or linux, and wrote bad code... it wouldn't compile. W3C standards are a way of verifying that the code for a site will look the same in all browsers. It would be as if the road only worked for hondas.... so what if your mercedes benz doesn't work on this road, you shoulda bought a honda.... why build a road for the vehicle that fewer people drive?
 
almostinsane1 said:
you mean the other browsers are not IE compliant. Why would you make your site accessible for the lowest common denominator?
Click to expand...

The lowest common denominator that you speak of is how things should be done.

If it's not standards compliant it shouldn't be used, period. Broken sites and hacked ass code isn't cool.

I like xENo's analogy.
 
As many have said ^^^ the problems don't really lie with the browsers but more how the code on the page is written.

IMO, one of the biggest coups that MS was able to pull off with the market share that it has was its ability to tailor make code that works almost exclusively on IE shutting out the other browsers to some features of a particular website. Biggest problem is that it isn't standards compliant.

If we're all to play in the big happy world of the WWW, then we need the standards there so we don't run into problems now and, even more importantly, down the road. And while I imagine that I might try to do the same thing were I in MS's shoes (maybe not, don't know) and fully leverage the market share that I command, it doesn't follow the standards set forth by the W3C.

To that end, if you must, keep IE there for surfing to those most stubborn webpages. Then email the webmaster and tell him to get his code up to date as the world is moving on.

And, for the record, I couldn't duplicate any of the problems the OP had on those websites.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top