Posted by Onideus Mad Hatter on 08/23/05 02:56

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:04:12 -0700, "^reaper^" <knocking@deaths.door>
wrote:

>> That data is based on the research that I and others in some of my
>> threads did using this site:
>> http://www.backwater-productions.net/_test_platform/bw3/test.html
>>
>> Now if I could only get screen shots of IE on the Mac at 800x600,
>> 1280x1024, 1152x864 and 1600x1200 it'd be a flawless positioning
>> script....
>>
>> at least with the latest versions of IE (Mac & PC), Konqueror, Opera,
>> Netscape, Firefox, Safari and Galeon.

>Yes, I know what you are attempting to do.

I'm not "attempting" anything, Sunshine, I'm DOING, there's a
difference.

>However, detecting your os/browser server side, for example
>
> http://www.spyderware.net/source/reaptest.htm
>
>provides a means to utilize your visitor logs for dynamically adding new
>browser/os flavors as they come along,

....why would I want to do that? I mean, really, do you have ANY
fuckin cl00 as to how many browsers there are out there? I'm
certainly not interested in keeping track of every sloppy piece of
shit that comes along. I'm only interested in the 99% range,
attempting some sort of absolute perfect is just a waste of time, you
would never get anything accomplished. Perfection doesn't exist, not
in nature not in math not in anything. There is no such thing as a
"perfect circle", take some higher level math courses if yer having
trouble figure it out.

>as well as reducing client side bandwidth and computes.

Are you still doing dates as 00, 01, 02, 03?

Fuck, you really need to get over this byte skimping fetish of yours
and come on back to reality. Maybe if I was doing something other
than just detecting the users browser and operating system you might
have a point, but this nitpicking stupidity of yours over something
that's about 1 kilobyte in size has just got to stop, kiddo, it's not
healthy.

>Though, in light of the massive redundancy in your main.swf impl
>
> http://www.spyderware.net/source/omhflash.xml
>
>the 1.5k byte and 65 compute cycle reduction is negligble. *shrugs*

As are most of your "reductions"...in fact most of your reductions
sacrifice just a handful of kilobytes for a shit load of computing
cycles and sometimes I think you forget that scripting languages run
WAY slower than compiled languages...in fact sometimes I get the
distinct impression you don't actually test any of this stuff that you
propose. *shrugs*

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net

[Back to original message]