Under construction

}TCP{ZzCaT · Post by **}TCP{ZzCaT** » Tue Feb 10, 2004 11:35 pm

The site is currently under construction. Adding graphics and layout as I make them.

ZZ

Post by **}TCP{Carnage** » Wed Feb 11, 2004 4:02 pm

Great m8

}TCP{Cee · Post by **}TCP{Cee** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 4:30 pm

The site still gives me a "optimized for Internet Explorer" box when loading it

}TCP{aLICe · Post by **}TCP{aLICe** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:12 pm

Very irritable, especially because I use Mozilla

and everything is ok.
ow and pls ANY flash/java plugins! Pure html (ok a little java script could be) and amazing Sirfy's graphics

Post by **}TCP{Wolf** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 9:24 pm

lol yea, if you put flash or anything on it, I won't see it either :p

}TCP{ZzCaT · Post by **}TCP{ZzCaT** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 9:29 pm

}TCP{aLICe wrote:Very irritable, especially because I use Mozilla and everything is ok.
ow and pls ANY flash/java plugins! Pure html (ok a little java script could be) and amazing Sirfy's graphics

I can't help it that Mozilla/Netscape isn't fully IE6 compatible. But I will do my best to code around the problems. I use both browsers myself as well.

The browser warning is there because I coded some things in javascript and use some HTML statements that will only work correctly in IE.

ZZ

}TCP{ZzCaT · Post by **}TCP{ZzCaT** » Thu Feb 12, 2004 9:31 pm

}TCP{Wolf wrote:lol yea, if you put flash or anything on it, I won't see it either :p

I would love to make a flash page, but it always means that you would have to code a non flash page as well for people like you who don't have a flash plugin. For now I rely on div tags and occasional javascript for minor less important effects.

ZZ

}TCP{aLICe · Post by **}TCP{aLICe** » Fri Feb 13, 2004 8:33 am

}TCP{ZzCaT wrote:I can't help it that Mozilla/Netscape isn't fully IE6 compatible.

buaaaaahahahahaha buaaaahahahahaha

You make me..... buahahaha rotfl rotfl rotfl

*cough* sorry.... rotfl

Now, when I stop cry with laugher:
If we talk about standards Mozilla can't be compatible with IE because Mozilla is compatible with WWW standards! And IE should be too, but guys from Microsoft know better and try to take unfair advantage being monopolist. Ordinary ppl when buy Windows don't go to find another browser cause they got it with system.... until pissed off cause security, customization and more disadventages (to don't call them bugs).

}TCP{Cee · Post by **}TCP{Cee** » Fri Feb 13, 2004 3:25 pm

Do not bash the mighty IE6, without it, there would be 50 % less visitors in the m$ patch section :O

Post by **}TCP{Wolf** » Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:53 pm

Well Zz, I'm fully with Alice here

Microshit has always committed atrocities enforcing "their" pseudo-standards in complete disregard of the rest of the sane world. If you orientate yourself after MS you only help the evil grow stronger, while you have to defy it with all means necessary.

Companies like MS have no right to exist... but we're getting a bit off topic lol...

As for "Flash" or any other plugins, I just hate to install plugins just to see some stupid page. If any web-site requires a specific plugin to be displayed, then I don't visit it - end of story. A web-page has to be standardized, regardless how good it looks, if it doesn't follow standards it's just crap! This is why my original site (well after the java desaster the old TCP left behind) was so simple and yet fast loading and efficient. When you took over and made it look nicer, it had the bit of extra touch needed to make a fine website WITHOUT a complete useless multimedia overload. PLEASE, if you redesign it, don't go overboard with useless clutter, stick to the touch you originally had... sometimes, less is more. As a matter of fact, I believe we only asked for the site to be UPDATED, not redesigned...

}TCP{aLICe · Post by **}TCP{aLICe** » Fri Feb 13, 2004 10:09 pm

Well Zz, I'm fully with Wolf too

And dl time has meaning too. Who likes to wait?!

}TCP{ZzCaT · Post by **}TCP{ZzCaT** » Fri Feb 13, 2004 10:36 pm

I've read the Mozilla standards and adjusted the javascript accordingly. It seems to work fine now for both browsers.

As for the redisign, I think it's necessary. The buttons I used to make are ready made buttons. I have no influence as to how big they get and so forth. They are generated by a program. The new ones are self made photoshop documents that can be edited easily, thus maintained better. I think they turned out a bit big tho. I'm redesigning the main menu as we speak to make things easier for people who use lower resolutions.

And there's also the matter of Sirfy wanting to code the HTML portion of the pages. That would be fine by me, I like making graphics better anyway

ZZ

}TCP{Cee · Post by **}TCP{Cee** » Sat Feb 14, 2004 3:13 am

Lower resolution ? Like 640x480 ?

Though green circle thingies would be better than blue :/
And I'm totally with Babette, if m$ would be a company with evil...etc..where are my promised books ? :/

}TCP{ZzCaT · Post by **}TCP{ZzCaT** » Sat Feb 14, 2004 7:00 am

}TCP{Cee wrote:Lower resolution ? Like 640x480 ?

Well maybe not quite that but 800x600 is something that a lot of people still use.

}TCP{Cee wrote:Though green circle thingies would be better than blue :/

I thought more like red things next time?

}TCP{Cee wrote:where are my promised books ? :/

https://www.redhat.com/docs/

}TCP{Cee · Post by **}TCP{Cee** » Sat Feb 14, 2004 1:18 pm

800x600 is not acceptable in 2004 :/

ow..manuals..from the company..I expected cool books like..Getting to know Linux... Coding shit with Linux...Hacking Car with Linux.. Linux is geen jux... Linux, how to become a God and such :l

www.tcpclan.net

Welcome to the Board

Under construction

Under construction