MyYahoo WTF



  • As I do every morning, went to access my MyYahoo page from www.yahoo.com.  I didn't even get the courtesy of a redirect:

     

    BTW, am I the only one that is having problems with the HTML Editor in IE 7?   All the sudden I couldn't see the toolbar or the tabs.  I had to post this is Firefox, which worked fine.



  • @TunnelRat said:

    BTW, am I the only one that is having problems with the HTML Editor in IE 7?   All the sudden I couldn't see the toolbar or the tabs.  I had to post this is Firefox, which worked fine.

    I've seen it flake out occasionally in Firefox also. 



  • @TunnelRat said:

    BTW, am I the only one that is having problems with the HTML Editor in IE 7?   All the sudden I couldn't see the toolbar or the tabs.  I had to post this is Firefox, which worked fine.

    Not a fan of IE7.  Clearly superior to IE6, but not superior to FFX.  My main issue is that tabbed browsing is slow.  If I middle click in firefox, the new tab opens and immediately starts loading a page, but in IE7, it takes forever.  At least it has tabbed browsing, which IE6 did not.



  • @bstorer said:

    Here, have a mug.



  • That's weird - my tabbed browsing in IE7 works great.



  • IE7 tabbed browsing is scchhhhhloooowwww.

    I don't know why. A page loads, and while that, you click the baby tab, and then it's like I'm running the program on a 4-86.



  • @dhromed said:

    IE7 tabbed browsing is scchhhhhloooowwww.

    I don't know why. A page loads, and while that, you click the baby tab, and then it's like I'm running the program on a 4-86.

    Works more than fine here. I have taken a liking to Safari for Windows, but not based on any shortcoming on IE's part. Safari just seems to 'fit' me more. But IE7 is my second favorite, and I have experienced none of the slow behavior that you mention.  



  • Aight.

    But Safari/Win is still a bit junky. 

    Then why not take FFX? I cannot live without Duplicate Tab. :)
     



  • @dhromed said:

    Aight.

    But Safari/Win is still a bit junky. 

    Then why not take FFX? I cannot live without Duplicate Tab. :)
     

    I agree Safari is still a bit buggy... but it is in Beta. You cannot say "Oh that beta still has bugs... I don't want to use it!" You take the bad with the good... and report the bugs.

    All I can say is, neither IE or Safari have the memory issues of Firefox, and both 'feel' a lot better in my opinion. Firefox is ok, but you won't find me installing it (just so that I can feel 1337!).

    As far as I can see, everyone who is trying to push Firefox on people is just as bad as someone trying to push their religion on someone else.

    If you like it so much, then by all means, use it. Enjoy it. But leave the rest of us alone. 



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @dhromed said:

    Aight.

    But Safari/Win is still a bit junky.

    Then why not take FFX? I cannot live without Duplicate Tab. :)

    I agree Safari is still a bit buggy... but it is in Beta. You cannot say "Oh that beta still has bugs... I don't want to use it!" You take the bad with the good... and report the bugs.

    All I can say is, neither IE or Safari have the memory issues of Firefox, and both 'feel' a lot better in my opinion. Firefox is ok, but you won't find me installing it (just so that I can feel 1337!).

    As far as I can see, everyone who is trying to push Firefox on people is just as bad as someone trying to push their religion on someone else.

    If you like it so much, then by all means, use it. Enjoy it. But leave the rest of us alone.

    No, I think I'm going to set up a spam server and write a DDoS Worm just for you, and your kind.

    Safari doesn't play well with my work setup, though. I have set the fonts slightly bigger because I'm doing 1600*1200 on a 19" Trinitron, It crashes and fall short of actually displaying websites.

    Tried it at home with a very standard res of 1380 * 1024, but didn't feel right. Lack of features, I think. I should make a list, instead of this "doesn't feel right" vagary.



  • @dhromed said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:
    @dhromed said:

    Aight.

    But Safari/Win is still a bit junky.

    Then why not take FFX? I cannot live without Duplicate Tab. :)

    I agree Safari is still a bit buggy... but it is in Beta. You cannot say "Oh that beta still has bugs... I don't want to use it!" You take the bad with the good... and report the bugs.

    All I can say is, neither IE or Safari have the memory issues of Firefox, and both 'feel' a lot better in my opinion. Firefox is ok, but you won't find me installing it (just so that I can feel 1337!).

    As far as I can see, everyone who is trying to push Firefox on people is just as bad as someone trying to push their religion on someone else.

    If you like it so much, then by all means, use it. Enjoy it. But leave the rest of us alone.

    No, I think I'm going to set up a spam server and write a DDoS Worm just for you, and your kind.

    Safari doesn't play well with my work setup, though. I have set the fonts slightly bigger because I'm doing 1600*1200 on a 19" Trinitron, It crashes and fall short of actually displaying websites.

    Tried it at home with a very standard res of 1380 * 1024, but didn't feel right. Lack of features, I think. I should make a list, instead of this "doesn't feel right" vagary.

    ...You should check your setup. I use 1440x900, 1280x1024, and 3840x1024.No problems like you describe on any of them.

    The only major problem I see so far is that it crashes every now and then when an embedded movie is on a page.  

    Also, since when is  1380 * 1024 "a very standard res"?

    (Yes I know it is a typo. But you deserve some heckling.) 

    Also, dont make a list. No one cares. Just click the bug button in the toolbar and submit it. They have done a nice job with their bug reporting from what I can see. Use it. It is a beta. 



  • @dhromed said:

    a very standard res of 1380 * 1024

    Was that meant to be 1280 * 1024, or is the italics for sarcasm? 

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    3840x1024

    WTF kind of resolution is that? Can't be a single monitor surely. Dual widescreens?



  • @m0ffx said:

    @dhromed said:

    a very standard res of 1380 * 1024

    Was that meant to be 1280 * 1024, or is the italics for sarcasm? 

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    3840x1024

    WTF kind of resolution is that? Can't be a single monitor surely. Dual widescreens?

    Triple 19" widescreens. Actually should be more resolution available, but the adapter I use only supports a max of 3840x1024. 



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Triple 19" widescreens

    holy shit



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Triple 19" widescreens.

    I have always wondered why people feel a desire to have more screen space than their eyes can actually see without turning their neck. Half that lot is going to be in your blind spot.

    You've got about 20-40 degrees of useful visual angle in all directions - it would be more productive to move up rather than out, and then you'd be able to fit an A4 sheet on the screen at real size. Why doesn't anybody make double-height displays, rather than these silly elongated things? It'd be much more useful to have a pair of displays in 2:3, giving you an overall 4:3 display with an effective diagonal of 30"-40" in a dual-head setup.



  • @asuffield said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Triple 19" widescreens.

    I have always wondered why people feel a desire to have more screen space than their eyes can actually see without turning their neck. Half that lot is going to be in your blind spot.

    You've got about 20-40 degrees of useful visual angle in all directions - it would be more productive to move up rather than out, and then you'd be able to fit an A4 sheet on the screen at real size. Why doesn't anybody make double-height displays, rather than these silly elongated things? It'd be much more useful to have a pair of displays in 2:3, giving you an overall 4:3 display with an effective diagonal of 30"-40" in a dual-head setup.

    I'm not sure about you, but the eyes in my skull are in [i]left and right[/i] positions.



  • @asuffield said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Triple 19" widescreens.

    I have always wondered why people feel a desire to have more screen space than their eyes can actually see without turning their neck. Half that lot is going to be in your blind spot.

    You've got about 20-40 degrees of useful visual angle in all directions - it would be more productive to move up rather than out, and then you'd be able to fit an A4 sheet on the screen at real size. Why doesn't anybody make double-height displays, rather than these silly elongated things? It'd be much more useful to have a pair of displays in 2:3, giving you an overall 4:3 display with an effective diagonal of 30"-40" in a dual-head setup.

     

    Actually it is very convenient. I love it. Admittedly I skipped over all your numbers and crap. Seems pretty useless to me... you can sit there and analyze something to death, but when it comes down to it, I love my triple monitors, and can very effectively work on all of them while utilizing all of my screen realestate.

    Try it before you knock it. 



  • @asuffield said:

     Why doesn't anybody make double-height displays, rather than these silly elongated things?...

    In the early 90s a couple of manufacturers produced monitors explicitly designed to show an entire 11x17" area in portrait mode, but that didn't really take off.  Today's LCD monitors can actually be mounted any orientation you choose.  Ergotron (good company) makes dual veritcal mounts, quad mounts, etc. 

    That said, I have a 22" flanked by two 17" monitors and would never go back; it's perfect.



  • @asuffield said:

    Why doesn't anybody make double-height displays, rather than these silly elongated things?

    Some of the monitors I've seen can be turned sideways.  Then, you can do something with your display controller (whether it's "Intel Extreme Graphics" or something that doesn't suck) to turn the image on your screen back upright.  Kinda neat, but I'd still rather have a wide screen than a tall screen. 

     

    For dual screens, It feels more natural to me to turn my head or body sideways than look up.  I talked to an ergonomics professional (FLOABT*) who said that when sitting at your desk, you should be looking at the middle to the top of your screen if you stare straight ahead.  If you have to constantly look up or down, you'll start hurting your eyes.  Also, she said that dual screens should all be angled towards your body, rather than all being parallel. 

    Finally, having side to side screens is simpler because you can place them both on a desk rather than requiring some custom architecture (read: cardboard box) in place to put one monitor on top of the other. 

    *For lack of a better term



  • @belgariontheking said:

    For dual screens, It feels more natural to me to turn my head or body sideways than look up.  I talked to an ergonomics professional (FLOABT*) who said that when sitting at your desk, you should be looking at the middle to the top of your screen if you stare straight ahead.  If you have to constantly look up or down, you'll start hurting your eyes.

    I don't know how close you sit to your display, but I have about 6"-9" of empty vertical space in my visual field while looking at mine. The display could very easily be expanded to fill that space, although I might have to find a higher chair.

    What is important is that your neck is more or less stationary, and all the display space is easily reached with the natural range of your eyes - that's a cone of something like 20-40 degrees out from the center line (varies per person), within which there's no strain and you don't even really notice that you're moving them. If you have to significantly move your body or neck then there's constant strain on the relevant muscles, with all the usual problems that entails (stiffness, soreness, cramp, etc).

     

    Also, she said that dual screens should all be angled towards your body, rather than all being parallel. 

    That's elementary geometry, but I doubt it actually makes any real difference. It's not like they're curved so that the focal distances would be constant.

     

    Finally, having side to side screens is simpler because you can place them both on a desk rather than requiring some custom architecture (read: cardboard box) in place to put one monitor on top of the other. 

    Hence why you'd want a single row of taller ones.

    Someday I may locate some that can be rotated and experiment. Although I suspect it would interact poorly with modern smartarse rendering tricks (doesn't everything?).



  • The real WTF is anybody that will continue to use Yahoo's services now that they are complicit and assisting the Chinese government in carrying out human rights violations.



  • @djork said:

    The real WTF is anybody that will continue to use Yahoo's services now that they are complicit and assisting the Chinese government in carrying out human rights violations.

     Look, there is no need to talk on-topic. We don't do that kind of crap here.

     



  • @m0ffx said:

    @dhromed said:
    a very standard res of 1380 * 1024


    Was that meant to be 1280 * 1024, or is the italics for sarcasm?



    I'm can't remember the exact figure, but it's 13something. 1308 or 1388 or something like that.

    Hey, Ati made up that res, I just use it. I have no idea where the 13dd figure comes from, and find it odd, hence the very cursive text.
     

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    ...You should check your setup. I use 1440x900, 1280x1024, and 3840x1024.No problems like you describe on any of them.

     

    Yes, I suppose it has to do with my non-standard font setting. Res has nothing to do with it, obviously.
    Or maybe I just tried a beta too early. Maybe I'll try again later.

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Also, since when is 1380 * 1024 "a very standard res"?

    Since the invention of sarcasm.
     

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    (Yes I know it is a typo. But you deserve some heckling.)

    No I don't, but eh.

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    Also, dont make a list. No one cares.

    But how can I have a reasonable discussion about the state of Safari/Win if I don't know what's currently wrong with it?



  • Ah, I just realised that 13xx1024 is likely the 4:3 "upgrade" of 12801024.

    How nice. 



  • Re: multi-monitor setups

    I can't get used to them.

    I prefer a wider screen. My 19" 4:3 replacement will be a big fat single LCD.



  • @TunnelRat said:

    BTW, am I the only one that is having problems with the HTML Editor in IE 7?   All the sudden I couldn't see the toolbar or the tabs.  I had to post this is Firefox, which worked fine.

     Why use IE anyways? Use Ice Weasel!
     



  • @dlikhten said:

    Ice Weasel!
     

    That's a WTF in and of itself.



  • @asuffield said:

    Hence why you'd want a single row of taller ones.

    Someday I may locate some that can be rotated and experiment. Although I suspect it would interact poorly with modern smartarse rendering tricks (doesn't everything?).

    I'm using two very nice 20.1" 1680x1050 LCDs side by side, but for a lot of tasks having one or both rotated by 90 degrees would be preferable. I usually do work on one screen and have reference material (usually PDF documents) open on the second screen.Viewing a narrow page on a wide display is just a waste, as fitting the document to the width makes it too big and requires scrolling, and fitting it to the height makes it is a bit small (a normal page doesn't fit my screen at 100% zoom).

    However, most LCDs sold these days have standard ("VESA") mounting holes and I've been thinking about getting a wall or desk mounted stand and mount the LCD rotated by 90%. There are also swivel stands available, but they're a bit too pricey for me (and of course not available for larger displays.)

    Viewing a PDF/document/web page on a 16:10 screen rotated (should that be a 10:16 screen?) is simply amazing. I don't know about tasks other than document processing, but I think that most applications should benefit from more vertical space -- with tool bars and task bars taking up the top and bottom of the screen already, and most scrolling happening in the vertical direction.

     
     


Log in to reply
 

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