phpbb2 crashed with netscape

This is an archive of the phpBB 2.0.x support forum. Support for phpBB2 has now ended.
Forum rules
Following phpBB2's EoL, this forum is now archived for reference purposes only.
Please see the following announcement for more information: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1385785
User avatar
WebUser
Registered User
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2001 8:07 pm

phpbb2 crashed with netscape

Post by WebUser » Sat Dec 15, 2001 3:04 am

we tried (my friends and I) with netscape , and all got frozen or error . anyone has same problem ?

[Steve]
Registered User
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2001 8:29 pm

Post by [Steve] » Sat Dec 15, 2001 7:39 am

Nope I am using Netscape 6.2 (which kicks the cr*p out of IE btw :D) and it is fine. In fact, there are some large errors with vB and Netscape, but phpBB2 is absolutly fine. Well done lads!

Steve

User avatar
subBlue
Former Team Member
Posts: 352
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2001 4:34 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Post by subBlue » Sat Dec 15, 2001 7:55 am

which version?

I tested in NS 4.x + when creating the subSilver theme and all seemed fine (although NS4.x doesn't display all the nice CSS like the newer browsers)

Pit
Security Consultant
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2001 8:17 pm
Location: kµlt øƒ Ø™
Contact:

Post by Pit » Sat Dec 15, 2001 12:54 pm

Ah....I pity all those forced to use netscrape, especially 4.x...
Image
super fun rainbow colour sig

elanjeff
Registered User
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2001 4:47 pm
Location: Rochester, NY
Contact:

Post by elanjeff » Sat Dec 15, 2001 3:24 pm

Was that message really necessary?

Did it succeed in doing anything but making you look bad?

No to both. Keep your pointless flames to yourself.

CLee
Registered User
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 2:42 pm

Post by CLee » Sat Dec 15, 2001 5:41 pm

I happen to agree with Black Pit on this one. Navigator 4.x was the biggest piece of crap inflicted on the web. It was three times buggier then anything Microsoft ever produced and its adherence to HTML 3.1 and especially CCS1 was far less.

User avatar
WebUser
Registered User
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2001 8:07 pm

Post by WebUser » Sun Dec 16, 2001 3:00 am

NS ver 4.x (4.7)

WebSnail
Registered User
Posts: 524
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 2:20 pm
Location: South Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Post by WebSnail » Sun Dec 16, 2001 3:12 am

elanjeff wrote: Was that message really necessary?

Did it succeed in doing anything but making you look bad?

No to both. Keep your pointless flames to yourself.

Just a small friendly tip for future ref's... It might be worth taking a quick peek at the number of posts a person has under their belt before assuming that they're just a lamer... ;)

Pit might be something of a unique style but as it happens I'm pretty sure anyone in the web design community would happen to agree with his sentiment on this one, especially with regard to 4.X which sadly has caused me and other designers more headaches than anything else...

The irony of IE X.X being called anti-standard at that time by Netscape is something too daft for words...

6.2 is pretty good though although Mozilla is allegedly a lot leaner, meaner and better...

SamG
Former Team Member
Posts: 3221
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 6:35 pm
Location: Beautiful Northwest Lower Michigan
Name: Sam Graf

Post by SamG » Sun Dec 16, 2001 3:16 am

It's not quite fair to say NN 4 was all screwed up. If you compare the release times of NN 4 and the finalization of certain contemporary standards -- inclusing JavaScript and CSS -- you'll find out some of the reasons NN 4 was a little skewed. Some important things changed right after NN 4 release. So I don't disagree with the bit about unhelpful (pointless even?) flames.

But back on topic. There are some issues with crashes and IE. There may be a connection, because NN 4 may use a file that is giving trouble in IE. So if I were guessing, I'd say that there could be a common problem. But what the cause of the problem is, I dunno.
We should talk less, and say more.

User avatar
psoTFX
Former Team Member
Posts: 7425
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 8:50 pm

Post by psoTFX » Sun Dec 16, 2001 3:22 am

SamG wrote: It's not quite fair to say NN 4 was all screwed up. If you compare the release times of NN 4 and the finalization of certain contemporary standards -- inclusing JavaScript and CSS -- you'll find out some of the reasons NN 4 was a little skewed.

Sorry but I completely disagree, in the time it took to get to Netscape 6 Microsoft had released what? 3 versions of IE? Each one going a long way to implementing additional standards ...

Netscape cried foul at this (I guess hoping the Justice Dept. would immediately slap a ban on MS for integrating IE thus slowing down progress ... didn't happen though did it NS ...). Then the great hope of Mozilla was formed and NS execs appeared to sit back (I guess expecting the Opensource community to do their work for them ... which took longer than NS were expecting it seems ...) knocking out fixes for NS 4.x which did very little but tidy up (and/or introduce) a few minor bugs ... I have zero sympathy for NS (which everyone should now well know anyway!)

SamG
Former Team Member
Posts: 3221
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 6:35 pm
Location: Beautiful Northwest Lower Michigan
Name: Sam Graf

Post by SamG » Sun Dec 16, 2001 3:28 am

It's okay if you disagree. No hard feelings :D

And I don't wish to sound like I'm defending Netscape. I'm not. Nor am I attacking IE or MS. I'm just talking about a bit of history and pointless comments -- as I see them ... If you look at the events right at the time NN 4 came out, certain things firmed up in a direction that NN 4 didn't support. It's not a defence as such, just a point in favor of fairness. :D
We should talk less, and say more.

User avatar
psoTFX
Former Team Member
Posts: 7425
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 8:50 pm

Post by psoTFX » Sun Dec 16, 2001 3:32 am

Indeed, everyone is entitled to their opinion after all ... you are, I am, Pit is ... :)

SamG
Former Team Member
Posts: 3221
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 6:35 pm
Location: Beautiful Northwest Lower Michigan
Name: Sam Graf

Post by SamG » Sun Dec 16, 2001 3:36 am

My point exactly. Something we even agree on. :D
We should talk less, and say more.

Pit
Security Consultant
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2001 8:17 pm
Location: kµlt øƒ Ø™
Contact:

Post by Pit » Sun Dec 16, 2001 3:39 am

Yeah, not only am I entitled to an opinion, I also intend to inflict that opinion on as many people as possible, as often as possible, and in as clownish and sarcastic a way as possible. :P
Image
super fun rainbow colour sig

elanjeff
Registered User
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2001 4:47 pm
Location: Rochester, NY
Contact:

Post by elanjeff » Sun Dec 16, 2001 4:51 am

WARNING: the below message is offtopic and fairly pointless. Still, I feel a little better after writing it, so read at your own discretion.
WebSnail wrote: Just a small friendly tip for future ref's... It might be worth taking a quick peek at the number of posts a person has under their belt before assuming that they're just a lamer... ;)


If there's one thing I've learned from over 20 years of using BBSs, it's that writing a lot of messages does not mean that someone isn't a lamer. A message that does nothing but spout an opinion that is pointless and insults the person asking the question, no matter if it's posted by someone with 10,000 messages or 10, is the sort of thing that's going to make any sensible reader think "lamer!!!" whether it is true or not.

You just can't judge someone by the number of posts they've made. I've been playing with phpBB since before the first beta was released and have a board with over 10k messages. I've also squashed a bug or two in the 1.x branch (specifically one that was a standards compliance thing that IE would allow and nothing else would) and have added a "random quotes" hack to my forum. Now, because I haven't posted much on the phpBB2 forum, this means that I should cowtow to those with more posts? There's too much "noise" on most message boards, I prefer to post only when I have something constructive to say - especially on a forum that exists solely as a test and support forum for phpBB2. (Which I've been reading for many months, but had nothing to say until the pre-RC1 was released, hence the recent "joined:" date.) This doesn't mean that my opinions are any better or worse than someone with more or less posts.

In this case, my fervent hope is that maybe, just maybe, next time, some folks will keep their unneeded and counterproductive flames to themself.

Anyways, cripes, NS4 is an OLD browser. It's not fair to compare it to modern browsers. There's a lot of reasons why Mozilla is as late as it is, but it's clear that the final product is as advanced, and in many ways more advanced, than any other browser out there. More importantly, it rigidly adheres to the HTML standards. Note also that there are reports of IE crashing on some phpBB boards. (Plus, some of us find the IE user interface to be the computer equivalent of fingernails on a chalkboard.)

I'm done with this topic now. I'll be shutting up again until I feel like I have something worthwhile to add, which this message certainly isn't. Like I said before, let's get back to the issue at hand: phpBB2. If these pointless tangents delay the release of the full RC-1 version by even an hour, I'm gonna be POed! :)

(Isn't it amazing how much debate a throwaway line can generate? And apologies to WebUser for hijacking his thread!)

Locked

Return to “2.0.x Support Forum”