Thoughts on IE6
-
I was running IE6 PR1 for a while and apart from a few little bugs it seemed fine. Now that I've installed the all-official IE6 release, I'm finding the page render times are really, really slow and that the browser window continually locks up (ie. sits like a lump on a log refusing to accept user input) while it's downloading pages (esp this week with that damned nimda virus clogging things). Is it just me? (Env: W2K Server, .NET beta 2, 256Mb, 800MHz) cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
I have the same setup, minus .NET beta 2, and it seems to work just fine. I haven't had any problems with windows locking up, and the page render times are normal. Jon Sagara Sagara Software
-
I was running IE6 PR1 for a while and apart from a few little bugs it seemed fine. Now that I've installed the all-official IE6 release, I'm finding the page render times are really, really slow and that the browser window continually locks up (ie. sits like a lump on a log refusing to accept user input) while it's downloading pages (esp this week with that damned nimda virus clogging things). Is it just me? (Env: W2K Server, .NET beta 2, 256Mb, 800MHz) cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
No problems here, I also used the various prereleases/betas without any hiccups. I'm running W2K Pro, .NET beta2, VS6.0, (and a whole mess of other stuff :) ), p3 450, 192mb I can say that I'm pretty happy with it so far. I think DHTML and page rendering in general is better than in previous versions.
-
I was running IE6 PR1 for a while and apart from a few little bugs it seemed fine. Now that I've installed the all-official IE6 release, I'm finding the page render times are really, really slow and that the browser window continually locks up (ie. sits like a lump on a log refusing to accept user input) while it's downloading pages (esp this week with that damned nimda virus clogging things). Is it just me? (Env: W2K Server, .NET beta 2, 256Mb, 800MHz) cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
I have been running IE6 for the last couple of weeks with no problem on PIII 600MHz 128MB RAM laptop. Therefore I must deduce that Canberra is once again sucking the life out something, that being your IE6 installation. There got through the post without mentioning Porn. Michael Martin Pegasystems Pty Ltd Australia martm@pegasystems.com +61 413-004-018 "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace" - Victor Stone
-
I was running IE6 PR1 for a while and apart from a few little bugs it seemed fine. Now that I've installed the all-official IE6 release, I'm finding the page render times are really, really slow and that the browser window continually locks up (ie. sits like a lump on a log refusing to accept user input) while it's downloading pages (esp this week with that damned nimda virus clogging things). Is it just me? (Env: W2K Server, .NET beta 2, 256Mb, 800MHz) cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
No problems here. There only inconvenience is that one Web site didn't recognize it and suggested I should upgrade to IE4 or newer Vagif Abilov COM+/ATL/MFC Developer Oslo, Norway
-
I was running IE6 PR1 for a while and apart from a few little bugs it seemed fine. Now that I've installed the all-official IE6 release, I'm finding the page render times are really, really slow and that the browser window continually locks up (ie. sits like a lump on a log refusing to accept user input) while it's downloading pages (esp this week with that damned nimda virus clogging things). Is it just me? (Env: W2K Server, .NET beta 2, 256Mb, 800MHz) cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
Chris, I installed the IE6 preview and it totally ruined two machines (when uninstalling it locked up, restart, "Can't find User.exe", bang head on table till it hurts) and messed up the shell on another (Explorer treelist not letting me open/close folders etc). So, I was a little unsure whether to install IE6 final. Well, what do you know, they fixed those other bugs and introduced all the ones you have mentioned. I think some of the slowness can be put down to nimda but I think IE6 has changed the way it renders pages. Instead of rendering the HTML as it comes in (as far as possible) it seems to wait until it receives the whole page now before beginning to render. Also, the main window is disabled whilst the page is being downloaded from what I can see. So, no, you're not alone. James Spibey "What's wrong with being sexy?" - Nigel Tuffnell
-
I was running IE6 PR1 for a while and apart from a few little bugs it seemed fine. Now that I've installed the all-official IE6 release, I'm finding the page render times are really, really slow and that the browser window continually locks up (ie. sits like a lump on a log refusing to accept user input) while it's downloading pages (esp this week with that damned nimda virus clogging things). Is it just me? (Env: W2K Server, .NET beta 2, 256Mb, 800MHz) cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
-
amen! how did they let that one slip through? otherwise IE6 has been bloody good (though nothing much to jump up and down over IE5.5) regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "We would accomplish many more things if we did not think of them as impossible." - Chretien Malesherbes
-
No problems here. There only inconvenience is that one Web site didn't recognize it and suggested I should upgrade to IE4 or newer Vagif Abilov COM+/ATL/MFC Developer Oslo, Norway
I can't claim credit for this - I spotted it in the microsoft.public.vi.dtc newsgroup the other day. The original post was by one David Loder. Here's his post - If you have any applications written with Visual InterDev 6 that use the _ScriptLibrary functions to render objects, be warned that IE6 will not be identified as being DHTML capable. And anyone using IE6 will see your application as if they were using a non-DHTML browser such as IE3. The problem lies in the pm.asp page located in the _ScriptLibrary directory. In that page, there is a function called _SOM_isDHTMLBrowser(), that attempts to determine if your browser is DHTML capable. This function only checks to see if you are running IE4 or IE5 and returns true if you are. If you are running IE6, it returns false, and all objects are rendered as down-level (non-DHTML) html objects. The original lines in pm.asp were - function _SOM_isDHTMLBrowser() { if (typeof(this._isDHTMLBrowser) == 'undefined') { this._isDHTMLBrowser = false; var userAgent = String(Request.ServerVariables ('HTTP_USER_AGENT')); if (userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 4.') != -1 || userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5.') != -1) this._isDHTMLBrowser = true; } return this._isDHTMLBrowser; } Throw in an extra 'OR' clause... function _SOM_isDHTMLBrowser() { if (typeof(this._isDHTMLBrowser) == 'undefined') { this._isDHTMLBrowser = false; var userAgent = String(Request.ServerVariables('HTTP_USER_AGENT')); if ((userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 4.') != -1) || (userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5.') != -1)|| (userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 6.') != -1)) this._isDHTMLBrowser = true; } return this._isDHTMLBrowser; } Dave R
-
I have the same setup, minus .NET beta 2, and it seems to work just fine. I haven't had any problems with windows locking up, and the page render times are normal. Jon Sagara Sagara Software
This is what I have been fearing all along. I have been asking incessantly about the performance hit that .NET will impose. It would seem, based on these completely unscientific anecdotes, that .NET slows down applications enormously. How's that for GIGO?
-
This is what I have been fearing all along. I have been asking incessantly about the performance hit that .NET will impose. It would seem, based on these completely unscientific anecdotes, that .NET slows down applications enormously. How's that for GIGO?
IE6 != .NET! IE6 can use features that .NET exposes (as could IE5) but installing IE6 isn't actually installing anything to do with .NET cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
-
IE6 != .NET! IE6 can use features that .NET exposes (as could IE5) but installing IE6 isn't actually installing anything to do with .NET cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
I guess I'm so dumb most of the time that it didn't come across that I was just being silly. You're running on a system with .NET installed and have performance hits. Other people wrote to say they saw no performance hits, but didn't have .NET installed. Thought I would be silly about cause & effect vs. accidental correlation, but as often it goes my humor is not as striking as I think it should be. The silliness of my reasoning is what I meant by "How's that for GIGO?"