Ouch lol
-
Howdy! Welcome to our community of more than 130.000 members devoted to web hosting. This is a great place to get special offers from web hosts and post your own requests or ads. To start posting sign up here. Cheers! /Peo, FreeWebSpace.net
Anyone else get annoyed by this?
- Thread starter DavidsAwesome
- Start date
Ouch lol
Then 1048576.
What's the point of using the traditional value for MB and the IEC value for GB? Be consistent! Choose one or the other! The reason I dislike hosts that use 1000MB = 1GB is because it looks so unprofessional when using 1 KB = 1024 bytes and 1 MB = 1048,576 bytes; in the same way that bad spelling and grammar makes a website look both unprofessional and untrustworthy. Whether you've actually realized this or not; 1000x 1048576 does not equal any accepted legal value of GB - a GB is either 1000,000,000 bytes, or is 1073,741,824 bytes - it is never, not ever 1048,576,000 bytes; yet this is the value many hosts use, including it seems you!
Clearly. But that's your loss because despite what you may believe; whatever your opinion and whatever my opinion - whenever a potential customer visits your website using MSIE or any Trident browser they will see a site that looks to them unprofessional. And as I said that isn't an opinion, it's a fact. Speaking personally, it is why I have never designed a site that looks good in only one resolution - I maintain that any site should look presentable in all resolutions 800x600 – 1600x1200; and should always avoid the use of horizontal scrollbars.
Because a difference of 24KBs is significantly smaller and rather non-significant than 24MBs, in the modern web hosting scene.
But you make a fair point nonetheless, so I will go and change it now.
Perhaps, but I don't really care. I do not run my host for the purpose of making huge amounts of money, but as a hobby. If I can make a great looking website, which complies with world standardards and works with the large majority of webbrowsers, I don't see any reason to dumb the site down, so it looks the same in the crappiest of browsers. And for the record, I have tried to make it work in IE 7, but it just doesn't support the best CSS features.
Another very hypothetical reasoning I use, is that in general people whom use MSIE are not as technologically aware and technologically intelligent as those whom use browsers like firefox (or mozilla based), opera or others, so they are bound to cause more problems, and face more trouble.
Regardless, I really don't care.
I used to design all websites for 800x600, but as technology moves forward so should I. If the large majority of people are using above 800x600 resolutions, then it's more beneficial to code for that resolution.
Mind you, the Liway site will work in 800x600 fine, without any horizontal scrollbars either - it's just recommended that people use a higher resolution for optimal viewing experience.
To who? Personally, I expect web hosts to offer full GB's, not 1000MB's. Just like when I go to the pub and ask for a pint I naturally expect 570ml. If they gave me 530ml I'd tell them that's not the standard size and take my buisness elsewhere!
Your statement has two parts, so let's break it down:
1. I can make a great looking website, which complies with world standardards and works with the large majority of webbrowsers.
2. I don't see any reason to dumb the site down, so it looks the same in the crappiest of browsers.
1. What standards? WC3? If I shoot a TV show here in Australia, I naturally shoot it at 25fps in PAL - correct? I then release my TV show on DVD. It gets released overseas - in America; except they won't let me release it in PAL. I say "well, PAL is the more widely used global TV standard, and I don't want to convert my show" - the publisher will say to me "you're an idiot, in North America most DVD players are not compatible with PAL, neither are most TVs - release it in NTSC or not at all".
Do I expect to buy NTSC if I go down to JB and buy an American TV show? Of course not! I want it in PAL, the format my TV is actually calibrated for - sure it runs NTSC no problem; but it's calibrated for PAL.
You can't just say you've made it standards compliant and that it will work with the majority of web-browsers when, regardless, the majority of internet users use the MSIE Trident engine - not Firefox or Opera. And I don't know why you keep referring to IE7 - more internet users continue to use IE6 then IE7 - it isn't like no one uses earlier versions anymore - I've stuck with IE6.
2. Maxthon is anything but the crappiest of browsers. It is the most popular browser in China - and it is compatible with both the Trident and the Gecko engines - what could possibly be better then that? But even if you like the Gecko engine it isn't worth using because Trident's Active-X control is far, far, far better then Gecko's!
It supports MORE. Ever used active-x enhanced features like GLOW? Does Gecko understand that CSS feature? No!
Not true at all! Most Firefox users are under the illusion that it has less security risks then Internet Explorer! How absurd! Or what about this - with Maxthon you have two companies independently creating fixes for any possible security flaws in IE - Maxthon issues patches for any security holes in addition to Microsoft. I just use IE6 myself; but of course with Firefox it takes longer for security flaws to be fixed, there are more holes and there's only one company to patch them for you.
People don't use Opera or Firefox because they're more technically intelligent! They use them because they prefer the browser over the competitors for whatever reason. I've used Firefox many times; and I don't like Java - or any Java-based applications; I'm sorry - but I really can't see why anyone would prefer it over IE. IE has far more features; and Maxthon offers far more features that I actually use (like content control), then Firefox. And correct me if I'm wrong, but Gecko has never supported VBScript has it? And it is more sensitive to errors in Javascript - correct?
Oh, I don't design for 800x600 - don't get me wrong, I just make sure the site is fine at that resolution.
I was talking about 24KBs there - not 24MBs. It's not a lot in today's modern web hosting scene, like I said...
PAL/NTSC are not world wide standards like W3C standards, so you're comparing apples and oranges here.
Not only can I, but I already did.
A browser which doesn't use an old, obsolete, slow, and standard non-complaint engine.
It's nothing to do with the Gecko engine. I have no problem with Presto, KHTML - or in fact any engine which complies to all or almost all w3c standards.
As for active-x, it's old, insecure, useless, crap, obsolete and I can't say I have ever needed to use it for many years.
I do believe I have already stated, that I do not care one bit about your opinions. Your flawed, biased and fundamentally incorrect opinions.
Maybe next time you otta check that my site does work at that resolution before implying to accuse me of restricting it's use.
They ARE world-wide standards. The metric system is a global world-wide standard; and just because a handful of countries don't use it doesn't change that.
The gecko engine in Maxthon runs no faster then Trident, not to mention you can use WHATEVER version Trident/Gecko you want with it - you're not constricted to only using a certain version!
Yeah, I'm talking about running the Gecko engine in a browser using its incomplete, buggy, rather useless Active-X control.
And yet it expands CSS in MSIE beyond what the competitors can offer.
It has been a real bad day. And writing personal attacks means your post is reported. I don't tell you that your opinion is full of crap; I respect your right to hold your opinion; and I have every much right to hold mine. So here's a newsflash for you: an opinion or personal preference cannot be "incorrect". You claimed that and I quote "in general people whom use MSIE are not as technologically aware and technologically intelligent as those whom use browsers like firefox (or mozilla based), opera or others, so they are bound to cause more problems, and face more trouble." I defended your accusation that IE uses are less technologically aware, less intelligent or otherwise less informed then Firefox uses, and so I'll kindly thank you to cease the personal attacks.
I didn't accuse you of having a non-rendering site at 800x600 - I was comparing it to your opinion on compatibility with the MSIE/Trident Engine. To paraphrase: I feel that ensuring that your website is compatible with all standard web-browsers (even the "worst") is as important as ensuring the website renders correctly at all standard resolutions 800x600 and up.
The fact that there are two of them, applies that neither is a standard. On the other hand, there is only one w3c.
Then it's not a very good browser after all.
Activex, is for MSIE, I'm not even aware of any gecko browsers supporting it, nor would I want to use a browser which supports it.
I don't see how activex and css are related, and there is no competition. CSS is a styling language, the standardisation of which is done by w3c, like everything else. Nothing more to it.
If Microsoft want to be all crappy about it, it's their problem.
Personal attacks? Mmhmmmm....
Really? And yet you claim IEC's values for bytes/kb/mb/gb is a global standard - even though there are "two of them" (and the traditional values are in far wider use then IEC's).
An uninformed opinion! It is far more customizable; and its features actually work. For instance if I click "open links in new windows", it will correctly launch the submit of a form in a new tab - whereas Firefox's option to treat new windows as new tabs doesn't even work when I shift-click a link (still opens in new window!)
http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/control.htm
http://www.fred.net/dhark/demos/css/css_filter_examples.html <--- that page was written in 2000; and Firefox still doesn't display ANY of the effects.
I suppose you are aware that Microsoft is a member of W3C; and every WC3 webpage has both wc3-valid-css and html; and they all display correctly in Internet Explorer?
Once again, apples and oranges here. They are definitions, not encoding systems. They can both simultaneously be standards without any conflicts between them, because they define two different things.
A Propriety browser more customisable than an opensource one? That is an oxymoron.
That's great, tell someone who cares.
This is just someone's project, it is not official Mozilla Corp. project, or endorsed by Mozilla corp, and has no relation to firefox nor mozilla, other than the fact that the project is oriented around that software.
I don't see how it relates to anything.
Don't just shove links in my face, prove the claims you are making.
Yes, I am aware that Microsoft is a member of W3C, I'm also aware that it does little in the way of complying the it's standards.
I don't see what w3c pages working in IE have anything to do with anything.
It's a small amount but at the end of the day it's an error. Just because it's industry standard it doesn't make it correct. I was just taking it to the extreme.
The EU have imposed very strict laws on how thing can be described and sold here in the UK and Europe and I doubt, that if they had an interest in webhosting, that they would allow this. Again, i'm not saying it's right but more thats the way it is.
It's a bit like mixing pounds and kilos in a recipe. People should stick to 1000's or GB's, at the least its sloppy labeling.
The EU have imposed very strict laws on how thing can be described and sold here in the UK and Europe and I doubt, that if they had an interest in webhosting, that they would allow this. Again, i'm not saying it's right but more thats the way it is.
It's a bit like mixing pounds and kilos in a recipe. People should stick to 1000's or GB's, at the least its sloppy labeling.
You are indeed, correct.
Ok, it appears that in The actual capacity of Disk Space terms it is actually 1000mb to the GB and in Memory terms 1024 to the GB, but oddly in file size it reverts to 1024
Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte
Ok, it appears that in The actual capacity of Disk Space terms it is actually 1000mb to the GB and in Memory terms 1024 to the GB, but oddly in file size it reverts to 1024
Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte
m8internet
New Member
If you have an advert claiming to have 5GB of website hosting, then that is what you must receive as a customerPossible OCD aside,, it's actually false advertising and therefore illegal
IMO, web hosting needs some kind of central watchdog, because overselling is one thing but false advertising is Illegal
If in fact it is 1,000MB then there are various courses of action you can take
Here in the UK we have the Trade Descriptions Act 1968
However, the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2008 comes into force this year and is less restrictive
The Goods and Services Act 1982 is far more enforceable
The trader MUST meet their contractual obligations, and it is more common to proceed to court on this than the above
As has been mentioned above
Memory is calculated in base 2
Disk space is calculated in decimal units
Last edited:
No it's not, if I open up a particular folder on my system in windows xp it says in the status bar: 2.69GB. At the command prompt it reports there are:
32 File(s) 2,894,313,865 bytes
According to IEC that is 2.9 GB. According to the traditional value we've always used it's 2.7 GB here's how: 2,894,313,865 bytes = 2,826,478.38 KB = 2,760.23 MB = 2.6955 GB (I've shown 4 decimal places to show that in this instance it should be rounded to 2.70GB if rounding to two digits, but XP makes that error). And what the IEC promotes and proposes is their business, the fact of the matter is that in practical usage it has always used base-2.
Only if the host refused to give you 1,073,741,824 bytes for every GB they advertised, I'm sure most would probably just agree to give you the full amount.
Also re: Starcraftmazter -
A Propriety browser more customisable than an opensource one? That is an oxymoron.
-
This is just someone's project, it is not official Mozilla Corp. project, or endorsed by Mozilla corp, and has no relation to firefox nor mozilla, other than the fact that the project is oriented around that software.
I don't see how it relates to anything.
Priceless self-contradiction.
I fail to see how, and there is probably much fail in your logic of determining that it was a self-contradiction.
