Flicker
Doesn't anyone have a suggestion for the IE6 flicker problem when mousing
over menus quickly?
I tried the Javascript solution I found but it didn't work. It was to put
this in the <head> area.
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript>
try { document.execCommand('BackgroundImageCache', false, true); } catch(e)
{}
</SCRIPT>
--
Shelly
Re: Flicker
Shelly wrote:
> Doesn't anyone have a suggestion for the IE6 flicker problem when mousing
> over menus quickly?
>
> I tried the Javascript solution I found but it didn't work. It was to put
> this in the <head> area.
Glue the two images together, and just set the background-position to
change on hover. That way IE6 doesn't fetch the image every time you
mouse over it.
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Re: Flicker
Els wrote:
> Shelly wrote:
>
>> Doesn't anyone have a suggestion for the IE6 flicker problem when
>> mousing over menus quickly?
>>
>> I tried the Javascript solution I found but it didn't work. It was
>> to put this in the <head> area.
>
> Glue the two images together, and just set the background-position to
> change on hover. That way IE6 doesn't fetch the image every time you
> mouse over it.
What two images?
What do you mean by "glue"?
I have a menu on the side with three menu items. When clicked, two of them
expand into submenus. (This problem is also there for the submenus). Each
submenu has a hyperlink. Moving the mouse rapidly up and down causes the
flicker of the entire screen. The menu items are nothing more than text
with a background. The colors change on hover. So, I don't know what you
mean with "glue the two images".
--
Shelly
Re: Flicker
Shelly wrote:
> Els wrote:
>> Shelly wrote:
>>
>>> Doesn't anyone have a suggestion for the IE6 flicker problem when
>>> mousing over menus quickly?
>>>
>>> I tried the Javascript solution I found but it didn't work. It was
>>> to put this in the <head> area.
>>
>> Glue the two images together, and just set the background-position to
>> change on hover. That way IE6 doesn't fetch the image every time you
>> mouse over it.
>
> What two images?
The one you see before hovering/mousing over the menu, and the one you
see while hovering/mousing over it.
> What do you mean by "glue"?
'stick' :-)
> I have a menu on the side with three menu items. When clicked, two of them
> expand into submenus. (This problem is also there for the submenus). Each
> submenu has a hyperlink. Moving the mouse rapidly up and down causes the
> flicker of the entire screen.
Ah see, you didn't explain that in your first post, and you didn't
give a link either, so I just assumed you were talking about rollover
images, which do indeed tend to flicker on mouseover in IE6.
> The menu items are nothing more than text
> with a background. The colors change on hover. So, I don't know what you
> mean with "glue the two images".
Nothing really - forget it. I have no idea what your menu is doing. I
thought you were using images. Maybe because I saw the word
"BackgroundImageCache" in your JavaScript snippet?
If you can give a URL, someone else might see/know what is happening
and give you a solution.
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Re: Flicker
Els wrote:
> Shelly wrote:
>> Els wrote:
>>> Shelly wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doesn't anyone have a suggestion for the IE6 flicker problem when
>>>> mousing over menus quickly?
>>>>
>>>> I tried the Javascript solution I found but it didn't work. It was
>>>> to put this in the <head> area.
>>>
>>> Glue the two images together, and just set the background-position
>>> to change on hover. That way IE6 doesn't fetch the image every time
>>> you mouse over it.
>>
>> What two images?
>
> The one you see before hovering/mousing over the menu, and the one you
> see while hovering/mousing over it.
>
>> What do you mean by "glue"?
>
> 'stick' :-)
>
>> I have a menu on the side with three menu items. When clicked, two
>> of them expand into submenus. (This problem is also there for the
>> submenus). Each submenu has a hyperlink. Moving the mouse rapidly
>> up and down causes the flicker of the entire screen.
>
> Ah see, you didn't explain that in your first post, and you didn't
> give a link either, so I just assumed you were talking about rollover
> images, which do indeed tend to flicker on mouseover in IE6.
>
>> The menu items are nothing more than text
>> with a background. The colors change on hover. So, I don't know
>> what you mean with "glue the two images".
>
> Nothing really - forget it. I have no idea what your menu is doing. I
> thought you were using images. Maybe because I saw the word
> "BackgroundImageCache" in your JavaScript snippet?
>
> If you can give a URL, someone else might see/know what is happening
> and give you a solution.
I did in the first post (not this thread). It is
www.festivalnetwork.com/events.php Do it in IE6. There is no problem in
IE7 and FF. To make it happen more quickly, expand the Events by Region by
clicking on it. This happens with top level and sub menus. Just move the
mouse up and down over the menu quickly.
--
Shelly
Re: Flicker
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 20 Nov 2007 19:45:37
GMT Shelly scribed:
>> If you can give a URL, someone else might see/know what is happening
>> and give you a solution.
>
> I did in the first post (not this thread). It is
> www.festivalnetwork.com/events.php Do it in IE6. There is no
> problem in IE7 and FF. To make it happen more quickly, expand the
> Events by Region by clicking on it. This happens with top level and
> sub menus. Just move the mouse up and down over the menu quickly.
I did this with some css in your stylesheet:
#SideLink a:hover {
color: #FFFFFF;
text-decoration:none;
XXpadding: 3px 0 0 0;
text-align:left;
text-indent: 5px;
}
(Notice the XX - a temp. negation) and it stopped flickering on a
downloaded copy.
--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
Re: Flicker
Bone Ur wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 20 Nov 2007
> 19:45:37 GMT Shelly scribed:
>
>>> If you can give a URL, someone else might see/know what is happening
>>> and give you a solution.
>>
>> I did in the first post (not this thread). It is
>> www.festivalnetwork.com/events.php Do it in IE6. There is no
>> problem in IE7 and FF. To make it happen more quickly, expand the
>> Events by Region by clicking on it. This happens with top level and
>> sub menus. Just move the mouse up and down over the menu quickly.
>
> I did this with some css in your stylesheet:
>
> #SideLink a:hover {
> color: #FFFFFF;
> text-decoration:none;
> XXpadding: 3px 0 0 0;
> text-align:left;
> text-indent: 5px;
> }
>
> (Notice the XX - a temp. negation) and it stopped flickering on a
> downloaded copy.
Awesome!!!! I thank you ever so much. I put it in exactly as you have it
above. Can you please explain in a little more detail (for my education)
just what putting XX in front does?
--
Shelly
Re: Flicker
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Tue, 20 Nov 2007 21:45:32
GMT Shelly scribed:
>>>> If you can give a URL, someone else might see/know what is
>>>> happening and give you a solution.
>>>
>>> I did in the first post (not this thread). It is
>>> www.festivalnetwork.com/events.php Do it in IE6. There is no
>>> problem in IE7 and FF. To make it happen more quickly, expand the
>>> Events by Region by clicking on it. This happens with top level and
>>> sub menus. Just move the mouse up and down over the menu quickly.
>>
>> I did this with some css in your stylesheet:
>>
>> #SideLink a:hover {
>> color: #FFFFFF;
>> text-decoration:none;
>> XXpadding: 3px 0 0 0;
>> text-align:left;
>> text-indent: 5px;
>> }
>>
>> (Notice the XX - a temp. negation) and it stopped flickering on a
>> downloaded copy.
>
> Awesome!!!! I thank you ever so much. I put it in exactly as you
> have it above. Can you please explain in a little more detail (for my
> education) just what putting XX in front does?
It's just a cheater way of removing the line from counting. Browsers don't
parse malformed css so this is like eliminating it. I wouldn't advise
publishing the page that way; remove the line or change it so it no longer
has the bad effect. -And you're quite welcome.
--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
Re: Flicker
Bone Ur wrote:
>>> XXpadding: 3px 0 0 0;
/* padding: 3px 0 0 0; */
> It's just a cheater way of removing the line from counting. Browsers
> don't parse malformed css so this is like eliminating it. I wouldn't
> advise publishing the page that way; remove the line or change it so
> it no longer has the bad effect. -And you're quite welcome.
Using comment markers to 'remove' it is better. <g> Doing so leaves no
doubt as to your intentions, and also protects you from next year's
browser, which might disregard /all/ CSS from that point on.
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Re: Flicker
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Bone Ur wrote:
>
>>>> XXpadding: 3px 0 0 0;
>
> /* padding: 3px 0 0 0; */
>
>> It's just a cheater way of removing the line from counting. Browsers
>> don't parse malformed css so this is like eliminating it. I wouldn't
>> advise publishing the page that way; remove the line or change it so
>> it no longer has the bad effect. -And you're quite welcome.
>
> Using comment markers to 'remove' it is better. <g> Doing so leaves no
> doubt as to your intentions, and also protects you from next year's
> browser, which might disregard /all/ CSS from that point on.
I'm using a beta of Next Year's Browser. Damned think can't even *find*
this year's web sites... ;)
--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
Re: Flicker
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 21 Nov 2007 03:06:49 GMT
Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:
>>>> XXpadding: 3px 0 0 0;
>
> /* padding: 3px 0 0 0; */
>
>> It's just a cheater way of removing the line from counting. Browsers
>> don't parse malformed css so this is like eliminating it. I wouldn't
>> advise publishing the page that way; remove the line or change it so
>> it no longer has the bad effect. -And you're quite welcome.
>
> Using comment markers to 'remove' it is better. <g> Doing so leaves no
> doubt as to your intentions, and also protects you from next year's
> browser, which might disregard /all/ CSS from that point on.
Agreed. I use it only for "easier" preliminary testing on browsers whose
reactions I know from experience. (Saves keystrokes.)
For any permanent change, the line should be dealt with correctly.
--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
Re: Flicker
Bone Ur wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 21 Nov 2007
> 03:06:49 GMT Beauregard T. Shagnasty scribed:
>
>>>>> XXpadding: 3px 0 0 0;
>>
>> /* padding: 3px 0 0 0; */
>>
>>> It's just a cheater way of removing the line from counting.
>>> Browsers don't parse malformed css so this is like eliminating it.
>>> I wouldn't advise publishing the page that way; remove the line or
>>> change it so it no longer has the bad effect. -And you're quite
>>> welcome.
>>
>> Using comment markers to 'remove' it is better. <g> Doing so leaves
>> no doubt as to your intentions, and also protects you from next
>> year's browser, which might disregard /all/ CSS from that point on.
>
> Agreed. I use it only for "easier" preliminary testing on browsers
> whose reactions I know from experience. (Saves keystrokes.)
>
> For any permanent change, the line should be dealt with correctly.
What I normally do to eliminate a line but not remove it is to enclose it in
a /* */ set.
As far as handling it correctly, what was wrong with the line:
padding: 3px 0 0 0;
that caused it to flicker?
--
Shelly
Re: Flicker
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:24:38
GMT Shelly scribed:
>>>>>> XXpadding: 3px 0 0 0;
>>>
>>> /* padding: 3px 0 0 0; */
>>>
>>>> It's just a cheater way of removing the line from counting.
>>>> Browsers don't parse malformed css so this is like eliminating it.
>>>> I wouldn't advise publishing the page that way; remove the line or
>>>> change it so it no longer has the bad effect. -And you're quite
>>>> welcome.
>>>
>>> Using comment markers to 'remove' it is better. <g> Doing so leaves
>>> no doubt as to your intentions, and also protects you from next
>>> year's browser, which might disregard /all/ CSS from that point on.
>>
>> Agreed. I use it only for "easier" preliminary testing on browsers
>> whose reactions I know from experience. (Saves keystrokes.)
>>
>> For any permanent change, the line should be dealt with correctly.
>
> What I normally do to eliminate a line but not remove it is to enclose
> it in a /* */ set.
That's the right way to comment-out a line in the <style> element.
> As far as handling it correctly, what was wrong with the line:
>
> padding: 3px 0 0 0;
>
> that caused it to flicker?
I can only guess, but first of all, ie handles margins and padding
differently than standards-compliant browsers. Whether that is relevant
may not be pertinent in any case; it just might be simply a matter of ie
redrawing the page with margins/padding included on hover styles and
execution.
Maybe someone here knows more about it. I just chalk it up to the
"brokenness" of ie.
--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
Re: Flicker
Bone Ur wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 21 Nov 2007
> 18:24:38 GMT Shelly scribed:
>
>> As far as handling it correctly, what was wrong with the line:
>>
>> padding: 3px 0 0 0;
>>
>> that caused it to flicker?
>
> I can only guess, but first of all, ie handles margins and padding
> differently than standards-compliant browsers. Whether that is
> relevant may not be pertinent in any case; it just might be simply a
> matter of ie redrawing the page with margins/padding included on
> hover styles and execution.
>
> Maybe someone here knows more about it. I just chalk it up to the
> "brokenness" of ie.
My experience is backend, so I am a php person. I know enough html and css
to get by, but that is not my area of expertise. So, until now, I always
used the most convenient browser which, in this case, was IE7.
On this most recent job I have had to do a lot more with htnl and css (like
this problem). I have had to make sure things work on FF and IE6. The more
I get into it, the better FF looks as far as quality and more IE
comparatively looks like a piece of crap. Even a litlle thing like looking
at page source. On FF it is indented nicely and color coded. On IE it
comes up in (ugh!) notepad. Then there is the developer tools plugin for
FF. It is great. You can easily see the javascript and css files (and
other stuff). (Fortunately, it impossible for it to see the php or asp
code.) The only drawback to FF is that it takes longer for a first loading.
I also didn't care enough for Opera or Netscape to consider changing. By
contrast, I am about to set FF as my default browser.
--
Shelly
Re: Flicker
Shelly wrote:
> Bone Ur wrote:
>> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 21 Nov 2007
>> 18:24:38 GMT Shelly scribed:
>>
>>> As far as handling it correctly, what was wrong with the line:
>>>
>>> padding: 3px 0 0 0;
>>>
>>> that caused it to flicker?
>> I can only guess, but first of all, ie handles margins and padding
>> differently than standards-compliant browsers. Whether that is
>> relevant may not be pertinent in any case; it just might be simply a
>> matter of ie redrawing the page with margins/padding included on
>> hover styles and execution.
>>
>> Maybe someone here knows more about it. I just chalk it up to the
>> "brokenness" of ie.
>
> My experience is backend, so I am a php person. I know enough html and css
> to get by, but that is not my area of expertise. So, until now, I always
> used the most convenient browser which, in this case, was IE7.
>
> On this most recent job I have had to do a lot more with htnl and css (like
> this problem). I have had to make sure things work on FF and IE6. The more
> I get into it, the better FF looks as far as quality and more IE
> comparatively looks like a piece of crap.
You can see what web designers are always b*tching about! Things goes
smoothly and neat, simple CSS for a nice look and ARGH! it will not work
in IE!
> Even a litlle thing like looking
> at page source. On FF it is indented nicely and color coded. On IE it
> comes up in (ugh!) notepad. Then there is the developer tools plugin for
> FF. It is great. You can easily see the javascript and css files (and
> other stuff). (Fortunately, it impossible for it to see the php or asp
> code.)
Better not see it with IE or your server is very badly configured.
> The only drawback to FF is that it takes longer for a first loading.
> I also didn't care enough for Opera or Netscape to consider changing. By
> contrast, I am about to set FF as my default browser.
Well it would load faster too if was not a web browser but and OS
component and already preloaded...
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Re: Flicker
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 01:43:03
GMT Shelly scribed:
>> Maybe someone here knows more about it. I just chalk it up to the
>> "brokenness" of ie.
>
> My experience is backend, so I am a php person. I know enough html
> and css to get by, but that is not my area of expertise. So, until
> now, I always used the most convenient browser which, in this case,
> was IE7.
>
> On this most recent job I have had to do a lot more with htnl and css
> (like this problem). I have had to make sure things work on FF and
> IE6. The more I get into it, the better FF looks as far as quality
> and more IE comparatively looks like a piece of crap. Even a litlle
> thing like looking at page source. On FF it is indented nicely and
> color coded. On IE it comes up in (ugh!) notepad. Then there is the
> developer tools plugin for FF. It is great. You can easily see the
> javascript and css files (and other stuff). (Fortunately, it
> impossible for it to see the php or asp code.) The only drawback to
> FF is that it takes longer for a first loading. I also didn't care
> enough for Opera or Netscape to consider changing. By contrast, I am
> about to set FF as my default browser.
Firefox is my default browser, and I like it best. It does have some flaws
- they all do - but for me, the "user experience" <grin> is the most
pleasing of the lot. Furthermore, get this. I tried ie7 a bit after it
came out. True, it supports "the standards" considerably better than does
ie6, but I still switched right back to 6 because of the other stuff they
"neglected" (-like the crappy toolbar, no ftp, and more minor but
irritating imperfections.) Between the two, I will and do stick with ie6.
Happily, Opera seems to be making key improvements with each update. It
still has a few operational quirks, but I think eventually it will be a
top-flight browser. On the down side, I doubt if any browser will _ever_
be perfect so we'll just have to keep on making hacks for inter-operational
accordance.
--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
Re: Flicker
Bone Ur wrote:
> Firefox is my default browser, and I like it best. It does have some flaws
> - they all do - but for me, the "user experience" <grin> is the most
> pleasing of the lot. Furthermore, get this. I tried ie7 a bit after it
> came out. True, it supports "the standards" considerably better than does
> ie6, but I still switched right back to 6 because of the other stuff they
> "neglected" (-like the crappy toolbar,
"crappy toolbar"? What do you mean, vs IE6? II personally don't like the
FF default and the first thing I do is drag off the Google Search box to
clear some space for the Webdeveloper's Bar toggle button and at the
Enhanced History Manager and Enhanced Bookmark Search buttons. Not sure
what IE6 has that was so handy.
> no ftp, and more minor but
> irritating imperfections.)
No FTP? Of course because most folks won't need it and FF basic strategy
is an "a-la-cart" browser and you are suppose to add what you wish via
extensions:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search?q=FTP&status =4
Search Add-ons :: Firefox Add-ons
I think FireFTP the better extension, there is even an extension to add
a toolbar button for it.
> Between the two, I will and do stick with ie6.
> Happily, Opera seems to be making key improvements with each update. It
> still has a few operational quirks, but I think eventually it will be a
> top-flight browser. On the down side, I doubt if any browser will _ever_
> be perfect so we'll just have to keep on making hacks for inter-operational
> accordance.
>
Funny, I never felt IE6 very customizable and I never like the idea that
it intensionally blurred the lines between what is local to my system
and what is not.
SeaMonkey is my default because I like the suite concept, but I develop
on Firefox.
Opera, which I have 3 versions 7-9 for testing has minor but really
annoying "features" that keep if from my default. The most irritating is
the inability to drag a URL to another browser, nor receive one from
another browser. Even as uncooperative as MS can be I can drag a URL
from Firefox to IE from IE to SeaMonkey or to Netscape and back. While
developing I will have several browsers open and Opera just refuses to
play ball. Yes, I can select and copy the address and paste it into the
address bar, or drag the URL to the desktop and then drag the shortcut
to Opera, but not browser to browser. Dang it all other browser can do
it, what's up with Opera?
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Re: Flicker
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art [at] centralva.net> wrote:
news:22de4$474591f9$40cba7b0$29122 [at] NAXS.COM:
> Bone Ur wrote:
>
>> Firefox is my default browser, and I like it best. It does have some
>> flaws - they all do - but for me, the "user experience" <grin> is the
>> most pleasing of the lot. Furthermore, get this. I tried ie7 a bit
>> after it came out. True, it supports "the standards" considerably
>> better than does ie6, but I still switched right back to 6 because of
>> the other stuff they "neglected" (-like the crappy toolbar,
>
> "crappy toolbar"? What do you mean, vs IE6? II personally don't like
> the FF default and the first thing I do is drag off the Google Search
> box to clear some space for the Webdeveloper's Bar toggle button and
> at the Enhanced History Manager and Enhanced Bookmark Search buttons.
> Not sure what IE6 has that was so handy.
>
>> no ftp, and more minor but irritating imperfections.)
>
> No FTP? Of course because most folks won't need it and FF basic
> strategy is an "a-la-cart" browser and you are suppose to add what you
> wish via extensions:
>
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search?q=FTP&status =4
> Search Add-ons :: Firefox Add-ons
>
> I think FireFTP the better extension, there is even an extension to
> add a toolbar button for it.
>
>> Between the two, I will and do stick with ie6.
>> Happily, Opera seems to be making key improvements with each update.
>> It still has a few operational quirks, but I think eventually it will
>> be a top-flight browser. On the down side, I doubt if any browser
>> will _ever_ be perfect so we'll just have to keep on making hacks for
>> inter-operational accordance.
>>
>
> Funny, I never felt IE6 very customizable and I never like the idea
> that it intensionally blurred the lines between what is local to my
> system and what is not.
>
> SeaMonkey is my default because I like the suite concept, but I
> develop on Firefox.
>
> Opera, which I have 3 versions 7-9 for testing has minor but really
> annoying "features" that keep if from my default. The most irritating
> is the inability to drag a URL to another browser, nor receive one
> from another browser. Even as uncooperative as MS can be I can drag a
> URL from Firefox to IE from IE to SeaMonkey or to Netscape and back.
> While developing I will have several browsers open and Opera just
> refuses to play ball. Yes, I can select and copy the address and paste
> it into the address bar, or drag the URL to the desktop and then drag
> the shortcut to Opera, but not browser to browser. Dang it all other
> browser can do it, what's up with Opera?
My Opera has a few buttons for such things.
One for each of the following: FireFox,IE 7,IE 6, Safari, SeaMonkey
[url] http://operawatch.com/news/2007/07/tip-open-pages-in-firefox -and-
internet-explorer-directly-from-opera.html [/url]
--
BootNic Thursday November 22, 2007 12:36 PM
People grow through experience if they meet life honestly and
courageously. This is how character is built.
*Eleanor Roosevelt*
Re: Flicker
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:28:09
GMT Jonathan N. Little scribed:
> Bone Ur wrote:
>
>> Firefox is my default browser, and I like it best. It does have some
>> flaws - they all do - but for me, the "user experience" <grin> is the
>> most pleasing of the lot. Furthermore, get this. I tried ie7 a bit
>> after it came out. True, it supports "the standards" considerably
>> better than does ie6, but I still switched right back to 6 because of
>> the other stuff they "neglected" (-like the crappy toolbar,
>
> "crappy toolbar"? What do you mean, vs IE6? II personally don't like
> the FF default and the first thing I do is drag off the Google Search
> box to clear some space for the Webdeveloper's Bar toggle button and
> at the Enhanced History Manager and Enhanced Bookmark Search buttons.
> Not sure what IE6 has that was so handy.
It's what it doesn't have. I trim my ie6 toolbar down to 1 line as I do
in Firefox, but ie6 takes the prize as being the thinnest, thereby
maximizing content space. You may be able to add crap in ie7, but
removing it is a different matter. And, btw, what's with the
"misplaced" refresh button? -Another "wonderful" MS innovation?
>> no ftp, and more minor but
>> irritating imperfections.)
>
> No FTP? Of course because most folks won't need it and FF basic
> strategy is an "a-la-cart" browser and you are suppose to add what you
> wish via extensions:
>
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search?q=FTP&status =4
> Search Add-ons :: Firefox Add-ons
>
> I think FireFTP the better extension, there is even an extension to
> add a toolbar button for it.
I was comparing ie6 to ie7, not either to Firefox. FF is my main
browser, but I still use ie6 for various functions not limited to
testing. The drag-and-drop folder-view ftp is great.
>> Between the two, I will and do stick with ie6.
>> Happily, Opera seems to be making key improvements with each update.
>> It still has a few operational quirks, but I think eventually it will
>> be a top-flight browser. On the down side, I doubt if any browser
>> will _ever_ be perfect so we'll just have to keep on making hacks for
>> inter-operational accordance.
>>
>
> Funny, I never felt IE6 very customizable and I never like the idea
> that it intensionally blurred the lines between what is local to my
> system and what is not.
>
> SeaMonkey is my default because I like the suite concept, but I
> develop on Firefox.
>
> Opera, which I have 3 versions 7-9 for testing has minor but really
> annoying "features" that keep if from my default.
Agreed. I use SeaMonkey, too, but wish Mozilla would update its
"preferences" addressing to the "tools" menu item where it belongs.
Also, I like Opera's "Quick Preferences" idea for on-the-fly changes (but
it _does_ have some issues elsewhere.)
> The most irritating
> is the inability to drag a URL to another browser, nor receive one
> from another browser. Even as uncooperative as MS can be I can drag a
> URL from Firefox to IE from IE to SeaMonkey or to Netscape and back.
> While developing I will have several browsers open and Opera just
> refuses to play ball. Yes, I can select and copy the address and paste
> it into the address bar, or drag the URL to the desktop and then drag
> the shortcut to Opera, but not browser to browser. Dang it all other
> browser can do it, what's up with Opera?
Well, I actually never tried that. Ya sure you're not just being
doraymeish in your expectations? True, if it can be done with other
browsers, it probably should be available in Opera, but it's such a
trifling little thing one would expect to be out of the realm of things
which can make a grown man cry...
--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
Re: Flicker
BootNic wrote:
> "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art [at] centralva.net> wrote:
> news:22de4$474591f9$40cba7b0$29122 [at] NAXS.COM:
> My Opera has a few buttons for such things.
>
> One for each of the following: FireFox,IE 7,IE 6, Safari, SeaMonkey
>
> [url] http://operawatch.com/news/2007/07/tip-open-pages-in-firefox -and-
> internet-explorer-directly-from-opera.html [/url]
>
So I have to make a button for each browser that I would like Opera to
open a link in? Somehow this is equivalent to being able to drag any
link or address in the address bar to any available browser window
(regardless of the branding)?
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Re: Flicker
Bone Ur wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:28:09
> GMT Jonathan N. Little scribed:
>
>> Bone Ur wrote:
>>
>>> Firefox is my default browser, and I like it best. It does have some
>>> flaws - they all do - but for me, the "user experience" <grin> is the
>>> most pleasing of the lot. Furthermore, get this. I tried ie7 a bit
>>> after it came out. True, it supports "the standards" considerably
>>> better than does ie6, but I still switched right back to 6 because of
>>> the other stuff they "neglected" (-like the crappy toolbar,
>> "crappy toolbar"? What do you mean, vs IE6? II personally don't like
>> the FF default and the first thing I do is drag off the Google Search
>> box to clear some space for the Webdeveloper's Bar toggle button and
>> at the Enhanced History Manager and Enhanced Bookmark Search buttons.
>> Not sure what IE6 has that was so handy.
>
> It's what it doesn't have. I trim my ie6 toolbar down to 1 line as I do
> in Firefox, but ie6 takes the prize as being the thinnest, thereby
> maximizing content space.
So you mean IE6 has a thinner toolbar than FF? Not with mine, even with
small icons and no text IE6's toolbar is taller than FF's. Maybe it is
the theme that you are using. I am currently using Cute 3.3.1. Do you
have Use small icons and show icons (only) in customize for the toolbar?
> You may be able to add crap in ie7, but
> removing it is a different matter. And, btw, what's with the
> "misplaced" refresh button? -Another "wonderful" MS innovation?
Oh yeah! IE7 sucks! You can't even drag the refresh button in front of
the address bar, Big Bill must have made the decree! And this new UI
crap, the little helper buttons way over on the right but someone
decided to hide "Help" off-screen! (Not I need it but do you think that
is a great idea for newbies?)
Damn Apple! Yeah I blame Macs, I think MS started believing those "MAC
PC" commercials and started putting priority on eye-candy over
functionality and efficiency!
>>> no ftp, and more minor but
>>> irritating imperfections.)
>> No FTP? Of course because most folks won't need it and FF basic
>> strategy is an "a-la-cart" browser and you are suppose to add what you
>> wish via extensions:
>>
>> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search?q=FTP&status =4
>> Search Add-ons :: Firefox Add-ons
>>
>> I think FireFTP the better extension, there is even an extension to
>> add a toolbar button for it.
>
> I was comparing ie6 to ie7, not either to Firefox. FF is my main
> browser, but I still use ie6 for various functions not limited to
> testing. The drag-and-drop folder-view ftp is great.
What other way is there?
>
>>> Between the two, I will and do stick with ie6.
>>> Happily, Opera seems to be making key improvements with each update.
>>> It still has a few operational quirks, but I think eventually it will
>>> be a top-flight browser. On the down side, I doubt if any browser
>>> will _ever_ be perfect so we'll just have to keep on making hacks for
>>> inter-operational accordance.
>>>
>> Funny, I never felt IE6 very customizable and I never like the idea
>> that it intensionally blurred the lines between what is local to my
>> system and what is not.
>>
>> SeaMonkey is my default because I like the suite concept, but I
>> develop on Firefox.
>>
>> Opera, which I have 3 versions 7-9 for testing has minor but really
>> annoying "features" that keep if from my default.
>
> Agreed. I use SeaMonkey, too, but wish Mozilla would update its
> "preferences" addressing to the "tools" menu item where it belongs.
> Also, I like Opera's "Quick Preferences" idea for on-the-fly changes (but
> it _does_ have some issues elsewhere.)
Legacy, you know that on Linux in Firefox's setting are under "Edit >
Preferences" too.
>
>> The most irritating
>> is the inability to drag a URL to another browser, nor receive one
>> from another browser. Even as uncooperative as MS can be I can drag a
>> URL from Firefox to IE from IE to SeaMonkey or to Netscape and back.
>> While developing I will have several browsers open and Opera just
>> refuses to play ball. Yes, I can select and copy the address and paste
>> it into the address bar, or drag the URL to the desktop and then drag
>> the shortcut to Opera, but not browser to browser. Dang it all other
>> browser can do it, what's up with Opera?
>
> Well, I actually never tried that. Ya sure you're not just being
> doraymeish in your expectations? True, if it can be done with other
> browsers, it probably should be available in Opera, but it's such a
> trifling little thing one would expect to be out of the realm of things
> which can make a grown man cry...
>
Well I did say is was small, but irritating because it is something that
I do often. I'll have server different browsers open when I am
finalizing a design and it is just so ease to drag and drop the current
page to test and compare...
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Re: Flicker
In article <22de4$474591f9$40cba7b0$29122 [at] NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art [at] centralva.net> wrote:
> Opera, which I have 3 versions 7-9 for testing has minor but really
> annoying "features" that keep if from my default. The most irritating is
> the inability to drag a URL to another browser, nor receive one from
> another browser. Even as uncooperative as MS can be I can drag a URL
> from Firefox to IE from IE to SeaMonkey or to Netscape and back. While
> developing I will have several browsers open and Opera just refuses to
> play ball. Yes, I can select and copy the address and paste it into the
> address bar, or drag the URL to the desktop and then drag the shortcut
> to Opera, but not browser to browser. Dang it all other browser can do
> it, what's up with Opera?
On a Mac, you can grab a url with the mouse from one browser and
drop it on the Opera app icon and it opens fine in Opera.
--
dorayme
Re: Flicker
Here is another question. I have IE7, FF, Opera and Netscape on my PC. I
would like to be able to test in IE6. On my laptop I tried removing IE7
using the Add/Remove Software for Windows components and it appeared to
succeed. I then downloaded and tried to install IE6. It stopped because it
said a higher version was present (NOT!). This was even after a reboot.
So, for now, I have borrowed an old computer from a friend and it cluttering
up my office. It's sole purpose is for IE6 testing.
Suggestions?
--
Shelly
Re: Flicker
Shelly wrote:
> Here is another question. I have IE7, FF, Opera and Netscape on my
> PC. I would like to be able to test in IE6. On my laptop I tried
> removing IE7 using the Add/Remove Software for Windows components and
> it appeared to succeed. I then downloaded and tried to install IE6. It
> stopped because it said a higher version was present (NOT!). This
> was even after a reboot.
> So, for now, I have borrowed an old computer from a friend and it
> cluttering up my office. It's sole purpose is for IE6 testing.
>
> Suggestions?
Found it. At http://browsers.evolt.org/?ie/32bit/standalone I can download
a IE6 that can run on the same PC that I have IE7 load on.
Re: Flicker
Shelly wrote:
> Here is another question. I have IE7, FF, Opera and Netscape on my PC. I
> would like to be able to test in IE6. On my laptop I tried removing IE7
> using the Add/Remove Software for Windows components and it appeared to
> succeed. I then downloaded and tried to install IE6. It stopped because it
> said a higher version was present (NOT!). This was even after a reboot.
>
> So, for now, I have borrowed an old computer from a friend and it cluttering
> up my office. It's sole purpose is for IE6 testing.
>
> Suggestions?
>
What is your OS? If it is Vista then you're Vista'd(new term for
'screwed') You have to use some virtual machine SW. If WinXP then you
can have IE7 and you can install the standalone version of IE6
http://browsers.evolt.org/
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Re: Flicker
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 22 Nov 2007 19:29:28
GMT Jonathan N. Little scribed:
>>>> Firefox is my default browser, and I like it best. It does have
>>>> some flaws - they all do - but for me, the "user experience" <grin>
>>>> is the most pleasing of the lot. Furthermore, get this. I tried
>>>> ie7 a bit after it came out. True, it supports "the standards"
>>>> considerably better than does ie6, but I still switched right back
>>>> to 6 because of the other stuff they "neglected" (-like the crappy
>>>> toolbar,
>>> "crappy toolbar"? What do you mean, vs IE6? II personally don't like
>>> the FF default and the first thing I do is drag off the Google
>>> Search box to clear some space for the Webdeveloper's Bar toggle
>>> button and at the Enhanced History Manager and Enhanced Bookmark
>>> Search buttons. Not sure what IE6 has that was so handy.
>>
>> It's what it doesn't have. I trim my ie6 toolbar down to 1 line as I
>> do in Firefox, but ie6 takes the prize as being the thinnest, thereby
>> maximizing content space.
>
> So you mean IE6 has a thinner toolbar than FF? Not with mine, even
> with small icons and no text IE6's toolbar is taller than FF's. Maybe
> it is the theme that you are using. I am currently using Cute 3.3.1.
> Do you have Use small icons and show icons (only) in customize for the
> toolbar?
You're absolutely right! Both these my browsers have only a single "bar";
I moved the lower stuff up. Thought it rather strange in FF that there
then was a thinner but distinct lower blank "bar" where some stuff used to
be. I didn't realize I could de-activate what they call the "navigation
toolbar" without adverse affect (-until I checked after reading your
message.) (Ie's automatically vanishes.) Now Firefox has the skinniest
"bar" and most client-height (its statusbar is also squatter.) However...
My home page is basically a list exceeding the viewport height by about 50%
at "normal" font-size and full extension. I've noticed in the past that
Firefox seems to add an extra pixel to the line-height in any page compared
to ie and Opera. Ergo, although I have more viewport-height, there still
is (very slightly) less of the "list" visible. I say we sue.
>> You may be able to add crap in ie7, but
>> removing it is a different matter. And, btw, what's with the
>> "misplaced" refresh button? -Another "wonderful" MS innovation?
>
> Oh yeah! IE7 sucks! You can't even drag the refresh button in front of
> the address bar, Big Bill must have made the decree! And this new UI
> crap, the little helper buttons way over on the right but someone
> decided to hide "Help" off-screen! (Not I need it but do you think
> that is a great idea for newbies?)
>
> Damn Apple! Yeah I blame Macs, I think MS started believing those "MAC
> PC" commercials and started putting priority on eye-candy over
> functionality and efficiency!
Yup. I had the same thought awhile back - part of the reason for my
skepticism of MS's fundamental intelligence.
>>>> no ftp, and more minor but
>>>> irritating imperfections.)
>>> No FTP? Of course because most folks won't need it and FF basic
>>> strategy is an "a-la-cart" browser and you are suppose to add what
>>> you wish via extensions:
>>>
>>> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search?q=FTP&status =4
>>> Search Add-ons :: Firefox Add-ons
>>>
>>> I think FireFTP the better extension, there is even an extension to
>>> add a toolbar button for it.
>>
>> I was comparing ie6 to ie7, not either to Firefox. FF is my main
>> browser, but I still use ie6 for various functions not limited to
>> testing. The drag-and-drop folder-view ftp is great.
>
> What other way is there?
Well, this works exactly like having 2 folders open on the desktop (except
'move' becomes 'copy'). The handful of other ftp clients I've tried
definitely didn't work that way. You sometimes had to select shit and
sometimes even label files as text or binary, then hit "execute" or
whatever. I prefer the OS way.
>> Agreed. I use SeaMonkey, too, but wish Mozilla would update its
>> "preferences" addressing to the "tools" menu item where it belongs.
>> Also, I like Opera's "Quick Preferences" idea for on-the-fly changes
>> (but it _does_ have some issues elsewhere.)
>
> Legacy, you know that on Linux in Firefox's setting are under "Edit >
> Preferences" too.
Well, I s'pose it's what you get used to. The SeaMonkey/Mozilla thing
though just seems out of place to me.
>>> The most irritating
>>> is the inability to drag a URL to another browser, nor receive one
>>> from another browser. Even as uncooperative as MS can be I can drag
>>> a URL from Firefox to IE from IE to SeaMonkey or to Netscape and
>>> back. While developing I will have several browsers open and Opera
>>> just refuses to play ball. Yes, I can select and copy the address
>>> and paste it into the address bar, or drag the URL to the desktop
>>> and then drag the shortcut to Opera, but not browser to browser.
>>> Dang it all other browser can do it, what's up with Opera?
>>
>> Well, I actually never tried that. Ya sure you're not just being
>> doraymeish in your expectations? True, if it can be done with other
>> browsers, it probably should be available in Opera, but it's such a
>> trifling little thing one would expect to be out of the realm of
>> things which can make a grown man cry...
>>
>
> Well I did say is was small, but irritating because it is something
> that I do often. I'll have server different browsers open when I am
> finalizing a design and it is just so ease to drag and drop the
> current page to test and compare...
Yeah, and honestly, it makes a difference. That's basically my whole
argument about ie6's ftp option.
--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
Re: Flicker
Bone Ur wrote:
> Yeah, and honestly, it makes a difference. That's basically my whole
> argument about ie6's ftp option.
>
Well I use WS_FTP Pro which has folder view, drag n drop FTPing. I had
FireFTP installed a while back, I thought it was similar with folder
view. Don't remember.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Re: Flicker
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 23 Nov 2007 03:41:14 GMT
Jonathan N. Little scribed:
> Bone Ur wrote:
>
>> Yeah, and honestly, it makes a difference. That's basically my whole
>> argument about ie6's ftp option.
>>
>
> Well I use WS_FTP Pro which has folder view, drag n drop FTPing. I had
> FireFTP installed a while back, I thought it was similar with folder
> view. Don't remember.
One of these days I'll check out ws_ftp (if there's a shareware one.) I
have FileZilla on the other box and it's okay but not as easy normal drag-
and-drop.
--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
Re: Flicker
Bone Ur wrote:
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 23 Nov 2007 03:41:14 GMT
> Jonathan N. Little scribed:
>
>> Bone Ur wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, and honestly, it makes a difference. That's basically my whole
>>> argument about ie6's ftp option.
>>>
>> Well I use WS_FTP Pro which has folder view, drag n drop FTPing. I had
>> FireFTP installed a while back, I thought it was similar with folder
>> view. Don't remember.
>
> One of these days I'll check out ws_ftp (if there's a shareware one.) I
> have FileZilla on the other box and it's okay but not as easy normal drag-
> and-drop.
>
Only freeware one was WS_FTP LE 5.08 I used it for years, but won a free
full Pro copy awhile back in one of their website design contests. They
don't offer a freeware one any more, and only have a 30-day crippleware
one. I never would have bought one when the freeware one was so good.
I guess Ipswitch caught on! You have to find "ws_ftple508.exe" in
software repositories to get the freeware, or email me and I'll email
you an archived copy that I have.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Re: Flicker
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:49:36
GMT Jonathan N. Little scribed:
>>> Well I use WS_FTP Pro which has folder view, drag n drop FTPing. I
>>> had FireFTP installed a while back, I thought it was similar with
>>> folder view. Don't remember.
>>
>> One of these days I'll check out ws_ftp (if there's a shareware one.)
>> I have FileZilla on the other box and it's okay but not as easy
>> normal drag- and-drop.
>>
>
> Only freeware one was WS_FTP LE 5.08 I used it for years, but won a
> free full Pro copy awhile back in one of their website design
> contests. They don't offer a freeware one any more, and only have a
> 30-day crippleware
> one. I never would have bought one when the freeware one was so
> good.
> I guess Ipswitch caught on! You have to find "ws_ftple508.exe" in
> software repositories to get the freeware, or email me and I'll email
> you an archived copy that I have.
Got it (just now) - from Estonia no less! (I think Estonia is the place
where all the banished Italians ended up, except Luigi.) I want to install
the file on my other computer, though, where I don't have the security and
confidence which comes with ie6...
Thanks for the tip.
--
Bone Ur
Cavemen have formidable pheromones.
Re: Flicker
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> I guess Ipswitch caught on! You have to find "ws_ftple508.exe" in
> software repositories to get the freeware, or email me and I'll email
> you an archived copy that I have.
LE (light edition) was a fantastic FTP client. Although a little ugly and
grey, IMHO it beats the pants off any graphical FTP client that has come
since -- including the newer and more costly offerings from the same
company!
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 22:06.]
It'll be in the Last Place You Look
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/11/21/no2id/
Re: Flicker
In article <q6ej15-0k6.ln1 [at] ophelia.g5n.co.uk>,
Toby A Inkster <usenet200707 [at] tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:
> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>
> > I guess Ipswitch caught on! You have to find "ws_ftple508.exe" in
> > software repositories to get the freeware, or email me and I'll email
> > you an archived copy that I have.
>
> LE (light edition) was a fantastic FTP client. Although a little ugly and
> grey, IMHO it beats the pants off any graphical FTP client that has come
> since -- including the newer and more costly offerings from the same
> company!
Is this the right thread for asking all OT questions?
If it is:
A friend asked me how to get German writing (into which he breaks
out into occasionally when writing emails to friends in Germany)
spellchecked in the normal ways that his English typing is
checked (underlined in red and whatever)? He uses Windows XP and
Word 2000, and Outlook Express.
If it is not ok, he can go and find out for himself. I certainly
will not try to press anything OT onto the finest bunch of
earthlings that ever did exist.
--
dorayme
Re: Flicker
dorayme wrote:
> A friend asked me how to get German writing (into which he breaks
> out into occasionally when writing emails to friends in Germany)
> spellchecked in the normal ways that his English typing is
> checked (underlined in red and whatever)? He uses Windows XP and
> Word 2000, and Outlook Express.
Install the German dictionaries for Word? (IIRC Outlook Express will use
Word's dictionaries if they're available.)
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 1 day, 3 min.]
It'll be in the Last Place You Look
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/11/21/no2id/
Re: Flicker
In article <hukj15-0k6.ln1 [at] ophelia.g5n.co.uk>,
Toby A Inkster <usenet200707 [at] tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
>
> > A friend asked me how to get German writing (into which he breaks
> > out into occasionally when writing emails to friends in Germany)
> > spellchecked in the normal ways that his English typing is
> > checked (underlined in red and whatever)? He uses Windows XP and
> > Word 2000, and Outlook Express.
>
> Install the German dictionaries for Word? (IIRC Outlook Express will use
> Word's dictionaries if they're available.)
Yeah, that is what I told him. He said stuff like "Can you be
more specific?" and I backed out of the room mumbling about not
knowing much about Windows, look on your CDs, on the internet...
I noticed there are lots of German to English dicts on the
internet... but what he needs is a simple list of German words as
a data base and in a file that can be put somewhere and it simply
works to spellcheck.
Perhaps I will search his Word CDs (Would not be on his Windows
XP install DVD I guess) next week if I get time. I'd prefer you
fly over and help him though, there'd be a couple of homebrew
stubbies in it for you (I noticed in my friend's fridge that he
has a couple of mine unopened. You cook and stuff Toby, so you
might appreciate that my beer is made from the grain and like the
Germans, with no cane sugar).
--
dorayme
Re: Flicker
dorayme wrote:
> You cook and stuff Toby, so you might appreciate that my beer is made
> from the grain and like the Germans, with no cane sugar
I'm actually in the second fermentation stage of my latest batch of cider
right now. :-) (Sparkling cider is twice fermented: the first time's to
make it alcoholic, but the second time, in the bottle, makes it bubbly.
It's the same process as champagne.) I've added sugar though, and plenty
of it, as the apples from my parents' garden was very sour.
And since the 1980s, the Germans have been able to use whatever
ingredients they like in beer. (Well, any ingredients that are generally
approved for consumption -- they couldn't use strychnine for instance.)
They can't market it as a traditional German beer though -- in much the
same way as wines made outside the Champagne region can't be marketed as
"Champagne". Frankly, who needs champagne when Ridgeview is practically on
my doorstep? <http://www.ridgeview.co.uk/>.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 1 day, 4:34.]
It'll be in the Last Place You Look
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/11/21/no2id/
Re: Flicker
In article <ms5k15-0k6.ln1 [at] ophelia.g5n.co.uk>,
Toby A Inkster <usenet200707 [at] tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
>
> > You cook and stuff Toby, so you might appreciate that my beer is made
> > from the grain and like the Germans, with no cane sugar
>
> I'm actually in the second fermentation stage of my latest batch of cider
> right now. :-) (Sparkling cider is twice fermented: the first time's to
> make it alcoholic, but the second time, in the bottle, makes it bubbly.
> It's the same process as champagne.) I've added sugar though, and plenty
> of it, as the apples from my parents' garden was very sour.
>
I make cider now and then. It is quite a bother the way I do it.
Sometimes I add some pears too. Anyway, I get a big bunch of
apples, I crush them all up and into a tub, lots of extra pure
apple juice, I add some raisons, fair bit of honey. I use a hand
held blender to crush up the apples rather than a press. I put in
the lot, cores and all at first. For five days, good stir up a
few times daily, pulp and all. After that, rack and strain the
pulp off, juice going into into another fermenter.
Then a few weeks of fermenting (best in cool temps, Syd winters
are excellent for brewing). After all is pretty well fermented
out, rack to 1 gallon dark gin flagons, and store for 3 months
under house, needs cool. After these months, bottling time. You
can condition a little with a teaspoon or so of sugar if you want
bubbly. Leave bottles up to a year before opening. This longer
process gets you more a lovely wine. Simple really, if you want
rough scrumpy or cidery cider, open earlier, if you want finer
wine, leave it longer. If you are truly patient, it becomes hard
to tell it was apples that made the wine, but it is a fine drop
indeed.
> And since the 1980s, the Germans have been able to use whatever
> ingredients they like in beer
Yes, but I take my values from before the world got so close to
self destruction with its licentious and lax ways...
--
dorayme
Re: Flicker
On 2007-11-23, Toby A Inkster wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
>
>> You cook and stuff Toby, so you might appreciate that my beer is made
>> from the grain and like the Germans, with no cane sugar
>
> I'm actually in the second fermentation stage of my latest batch of cider
> right now. :-) (Sparkling cider is twice fermented: the first time's to
> make it alcoholic, but the second time, in the bottle, makes it bubbly.
> It's the same process as champagne.) I've added sugar though, and plenty
> of it, as the apples from my parents' garden was very sour.
>
> And since the 1980s, the Germans have been able to use whatever
> ingredients they like in beer. (Well, any ingredients that are generally
> approved for consumption -- they couldn't use strychnine for instance.)
> They can't market it as a traditional German beer though -- in much the
> same way as wines made outside the Champagne region can't be marketed as
> "Champagne". Frankly, who needs champagne when Ridgeview is practically on
> my doorstep? <http://www.ridgeview.co.uk/>.
I hope their wine is better than their web site.
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/ridgeview.jpg>
--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
============================================================ =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Re: Flicker
In article <hrok15-tvq.ln1 [at] xword.teksavvy.com>,
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2007-11-23, Toby A Inkster wrote:
> > Frankly, who needs champagne when Ridgeview is practically on
> > my doorstep? <http://www.ridgeview.co.uk/>.
>
> I hope their wine is better than their web site.
> <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/ridgeview.jpg>
Your jpg *underestimates* by more than an order of magnitude how
bad their *live* url is.
--
dorayme
