Exception Quiz



  • [url=http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/1745/untitledvn5.png][img=http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/1745/untitledvn5.png][/url]

    No matter what option I chose, it would then present me a login screen, then throw an "Error 1", an "Error 2101", and then this one again.

    Eventually I got it tired. It just threw a couple of "Error 1"s and gave up and closed.

     

    From their reference: 

    1 : Error WFERR_BUG

    Description : Bug detected

     
    ( Error 2101 is "WFERR_ADM_WRONG_LOGIN", which wasn't the case.)

     


    PS: I gave up trying to insert the image here. Just follow the link, please.



  • @Zecc said:

    PS: I gave up trying to insert the image here. Just follow the link, please.

    http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/1745/untitledvn5.png

    Huh? I just pressed the "insert image" button and pasted in your url. It's not hard.



  • @Thief^ said:

    Huh? I just pressed the "insert image" button and pasted in your url. It's not hard.

    When I look at the page, I see the URL, not the image, in your post. Must be the proxy at work doing some weird stuff.

    So I guess I did put the image correctly the first time, but because I didn't see it, I messed the post. Sorry!



  • Proxies are evil.



  • @Zecc said:

    @Thief^ said:

    Huh? I just pressed the "insert image" button and pasted in your url. It's not hard.

    When I look at the page, I see the URL, not the image, in your post. Must be the proxy at work doing some weird stuff.

    So I guess I did put the image correctly the first time, but because I didn't see it, I messed the post. Sorry!

     

    Nope I just see a URL in the post as well, I'm behind an IPCop box with Squid running but that doesn't convert image tags into text by any stretch of the imagination. I blame the dodgy forum software...
     



  • It's now an image in Zeec's post rather than a URL, that's interesting. Maybe it was my browser (Firefox).

    Also why the heck is there a 5min limit on post editing, who even thought of that? How could it possibly be of any use to anyone. 



  • @Cursorkeys said:

    @Zecc said:
    @Thief^ said:

    Huh? I just pressed the "insert image" button and pasted in your url. It's not hard.

    When I look at the page, I see the URL, not the image, in your post. Must be the proxy at work doing some weird stuff.

    So I guess I did put the image correctly the first time, but because I didn't see it, I messed the post. Sorry!

     

    Nope I just see a URL in the post as well, I'm behind an IPCop box with Squid running but that doesn't convert image tags into text by any stretch of the imagination. I blame the dodgy forum software...
     

    You are seeing the alt text, which happens to be the URL. That means, for whatever reason, your browser failed to load the image. Anything that could have caused the image to fail to load would have given that result. 



  • @asuffield said:

    You are seeing the alt text, which happens to be the URL. That means, for whatever reason, your browser failed to load the image. Anything that could have caused the image to fail to load would have given that result. 

    Yeah... duh...

    It's back to HTML School for us, I guess... 



  • The buttons are also all drawn wrong, and I don't know why. The accelerator underlines are one pixel too low and the dotted focus ring is one pixel too narrow on each side. I wonder if this is some sort of subtle difference with Windows 2000 vs XP Classic? The buttons are the same height as I see in Windows 2000, and the font is identical to my default.

    Also, the buttons use dark beige instead of black for the lower-right border pixels and the default button ring. This, though, appears to be one of the bizarre oddities of Windows. If you flick through the various colour schemes, Windows Standard is the only one to not use black for the darkest part of the 3D bevel. In fact, each shade in the 3D bevel is independently configurable in the Registry and obeyed, but not configurable via Control Panel. I had one Windows 2000 colour scheme where I did customise the bevel entirely to make it flat. I guess that Windows Standard does indeed come pre-set with a dark beige instead of black for the darkest tint of the bevel.

    You can also set, via the Registry, the colour of the scroll bar (the bar, not the thumb, contrary to sensible expectations), but Windows ignores this since 95. XUL, oddly enough, obeys it in its simulacrum, not being aware that the setting was Win16 only. To help my dad cope with the existence of scroll bars in Windows 2000, I set the bar to bright pink (good for Thunderbird and Firefox). As of XP, though, the default theme has better differentiation. My own scheme in 2000 is a variation of Rainy Day so I also get much better thumb/bar distinction. My PC, for some reason, doesn't dither the pale shade used for the bar and the active taskbar button -- some copies of Windows dither that shade as 50% 3D object colour, 50% white. Mine does not. No explanation there either.

    Another oddity -- by default, disabled text has a chiselled appearance. However, if you set the menu background colour to anything but the 3D object colour, the chiselled effect is turned off for menus and menu items and disabled text takes on the standard, flat appearance that XUL mistakenly uses. Since I have a subtly different shade for menus, Firefox and Thunderbird now match the rest of my system, but GTK+ doesn't realise this and still uses the chiselled effect when it's not meant to be.

    Finally, since I'm on the topic of the Windows GUI, does anyone know why drop-down menus and combo boxes use a floating list box for the menu? Mac OS and EIKON use an actual menu for the menu, but Microsoft decided to use a floating list box. It looks fail, and I never worked out why they'd do it that way. Maybe it's because menus themselves don't support scroll bars? (another WTF) Apple, with OS X, went in a similar direction, with combo boxes opening scrolling list boxes, but pop-up menus (i.e. drop down menus) using standard menus that tediously slide instead of scroll. I sort of get the idea, with menus being modal and floating list boxes letting the text box part retain the focus, but even so, why can't regular menus finally have scroll bars?


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.