Beware Spinner's sig in IE

t1rhinot1rhino Toronto
edited September 2003 in Folding@Home
Really weird stuff. If I view posts made by Spinner in IE, IE uses 100% of the cpu to render his flash sig.
However, if I view his sig in Mozilla, it only uses 5% of the cpu to render his sig.

What does this mean other than IE sucks...






Don't use IE if you fold, because it is stealing all your folding cpu cycles!

Comments

  • MancabusMancabus Charlottesville, VA
    edited September 2003
    I noticed this too a long time ago, although it only happens on my work computer, which has a crappy (as in old) ATI card in it, and it doesn't happen as severely on my TI4600, although it does increase CPU usage from 0 for IE to 10 to 15 percent at home.

    I think it's a graphics card or driver issue.
  • t1rhinot1rhino Toronto
    edited September 2003
    I just noticed on my laptop, so I haven't had a chance to do any further tests.
    I wonder why the difference between Mozilla and IE rendering?
  • shwaipshwaip bluffin' with my muffin Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    it runs about 20-35 on my pc (GF3 Ti200)
  • danball1976danball1976 Wichita Falls, TX
    edited September 2003
    Hey, his sig isn't flash. They are gif animations:
    Oh, and it doesn't use any CPU cycles on my computer to show these images
    http://www.spinnershomepage.co.uk/gifs/Shortmediasigspec3200.gif
http://www.spinnershomepage.co.uk/pictures/icronticsig7.gif
  • CyrixInsteadCyrixInstead Stoke-on-Trent, England Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    I noticed this whilst in Germany. I used the Citrix Client for Internet access, and as it was a remote computer-type thing going on, and it was crappy slow, Spinner's sig always slowed it right down.

    Boo, down with Spinner's sig - make it flash!! ;)

    ~Cyrix
  • t1rhinot1rhino Toronto
    edited September 2003
    I just assumed it was flash. Oh, and it's http://www.spinnershomepage.co.uk/pictures/Icronticsig7.gif
    that makes my IE use 100%.
    I wonder why?
  • pseudonympseudonym Michigan Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    Hmm, doesn't seem to affect mine at all. Win 2000 here.
  • BlackHawkBlackHawk Bible music connoisseur There's no place like 127.0.0.1 Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    18% here. But before it did make my system crawl.
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    Sod all useage in IE on my Machine, but explorer nearly hangs at work with the sigs on screen (2k Pro, P4 2.4ghz).

    I did make a note for spinner in one of his threads a while ago, to be a little more discreet.....

    NS
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    What does this mean other than IE sucks...

    Uh, that your computer has a software or hardware problem? :eek2:

    Just tested on No. 1 - 7% CPU utilization to render, 0 after that. No. 2 is 17% initial, followed by 0.
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    I wouldn't worry about the CPU utilization. I just consulted with Geeky1 and Thrax. They both recommended the following fix:

    Format C: ;D;D








    (Sorry, it's been a rough day for me; I'm letting off some steam.)
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    I use Windows 2000 and Internet Explorer 6.1. 1% CPU utilization with his sigs.

    But then again, we all know IE sucks because it's the most WC3-compliant browser, and can render code better than any other browser ever.

    If you argue with this, you haven't made enough webpages.


    Death to Fireturd, Hozilla, Safwhori and Nutscrape! ;D
  • LeonardoLeonardo Wake up and smell the glaciers Eagle River, Alaska Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    Thrax, I wouldn't know about the other browsers. Last time I tried anything other than IE was Netscape 4.0, which I thought was a clunky dog.

    Oh well, back on point. At first I thought I had a 1 or 2% utilization. Did you already have the Task Manager already opened when you opened a page with Spinner's signature? At least with my systems, the initial rendering of his graphic caused a sight usage, then it fell back down.
  • t1rhinot1rhino Toronto
    edited September 2003
    Okay, Format C:...




    Then what???

    Anyways, my home pc (1700@2.4) has no problem at all. Actually IE is sitting at 0% when displaying the pic.

    Hmmm :scratch:
  • GnomeWizarddGnomeWizardd Member 4 Life Akron, PA Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    100% usage on IE 2 % on opera
  • mmonninmmonnin Centreville, VA
    edited September 2003
    I remember having this conversation when the original FAH sigs were being made. The scrolling ones took quite a few CPU cycles.

    And at school, Spinners sig kills the machines. Its hard to scroll past them and takes forever to load on the P3s on XP w/128mb of RAM.
  • NecropolisNecropolis Hawarden, Wales Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    It uses 90% CPU usage here.
  • qparadoxqparadox Vancouver, BC
    edited September 2003
    Thrax, my experiences with CSS (1.0 and 2.0) on IE 5.5 have been very bad. It tends to eventually work after deleting something, but its like it doesn't parse sheet correctly. Its just wierd. I've never had problems on mozilla, opera or konqueror.


    There's plenty of reasons why IE is good, and other browsers bad and vice-versa and I don't want to get into a flame war here, but i've had nothing but problems with IE and CSS.

    I'm not sure how good IE current is with HTML since I haven't spent time designing an HTML page in many years. In my previous experience I found IE more forgiving but less true to form than nutscrape, but that was many a version ago.

    BTW, the second sig jumps to 14% on my lappy on Mozilla Firebird .61 from the render and then drops to zero until it loops again. (I refuse to open IE :D).
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    Thrax said
    I use Windows 2000 and Internet Explorer 6.1. 1% CPU utilization with his sigs.

    But then again, we all know IE sucks because it's the most WC3-compliant browser, and can render code better than any other browser ever.

    If you argue with this, you haven't made enough webpages.


    Death to Fireturd, Hozilla, Safwhori and Nutscrape! ;D

    Actually IE screws up lots of CSS code and it isn't even able to render transparent PNG images....

    NS
  • CyrixInsteadCyrixInstead Stoke-on-Trent, England Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    Indeed. IE + CSS = bad.

    Here's a bit of CSS code for you:
    #Header {
	margin:50px 0px 10px 0px;
	padding:17px 0px 0px 20px;
	/* For IE5/Win's benefit height = [correct height] + [top padding] + [top and bottom border widths] */
	height:33px; /* 14px + 17px + 2px = 33px */
	border-style:solid;
	border-color:black;
	border-width:1px 0px; /* top and bottom borders: 1px; left and right borders: 0px */
	line-height:11px;
	background-color:#eee;

/* Here is the ugly brilliant hack that protects IE5/Win from its own stupidity. 
Thanks to Tantek Celik for the hack and to Eric Costello for publicizing it. 
IE5/Win incorrectly parses the "\"}"" value, prematurely closing the style 
declaration. The incorrect IE5/Win value is above, while the correct value is 
below. See [url]http://glish.com/css/hacks.asp[/url] for details. */
	voice-family: "\"}\"";
	voice-family:inherit;
	height:14px; /* the correct height */
	}
/* I've heard this called the "be nice to Opera 5" rule. Basically, it feeds correct 
length values to user agents that exhibit the parsing error exploited above yet get 
the CSS box model right and understand the CSS2 parent-child selector. ALWAYS include
a "be nice to Opera 5" rule every time you use the Tantek Celik hack (above). */
body>#Header {height:14px;}

    So there we go folks. Protecting the world from IE & it's own stupidity.

    ~Cyrix
  • MJOMJO Denmark New
    edited September 2003
    I just assumed it was flash. Oh, and it's http://www.spinnershomepage.co.uk/p...cronticsig7.gif

    When I view the GIF in IE my CPU utilization hovers between 2 % and 5 %.
  • kanezfankanezfan sunny south florida Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    i think thrax was being very sarcastic, that's the way I took his comment. I think most people know that IE 6 is so far out of CSS 2 compliance it's disgusting.
  • RWBRWB Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    I viewed a thread with Spinner and his sig in it multiple times along with other people's posts and sigs mixed in as well, my CPU Usage hovered between 0% and 2%, but on average used less than 1% I guess.

    Viewing the Sig from the link provided above earlier in this post my CPU rarely jumped to even use 1% and even less 2%(only a couple times after viewing for about 15 seconds.

    I use MyIE2 which is I think is only a addon to IE. This being on Windows 2000 Pro SP4, latest Internet Explorer and all windows updates too.
  • RWBRWB Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    Right now I am posting from Internet Explorer itself instead of MyIE2, and did the same thing as I mentioned above, and got the same exact results.
  • SpinnerSpinner Birmingham, UK
    edited September 2003
    Hmmm, well I am terribly sorry about this. I always test my sig regularly, on a wide variation of machines, all running IE, and I've never noticed any adverse effects, especially in the CPU usage department. I know older systems with poor GPU's, can have a bit of trouble with displaying that much graphical information, but I see no reason why a half descent system should have any trouble with them.

    I mean do guys want me to remove them?:bawling:
  • t1rhinot1rhino Toronto
    edited September 2003
    Of course not Spinner. I just permanently switched to Mozilla. :D
    I was actually just curious why it is happening...
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    I think it is just basically something to do with old graphics hardware not being able to handle large, high framerate animated gifs.

    Heh, the work machines have "EXTREME(tm) Intel Graphics Controller"s.... heh, maybe they meant extremely crap....

    NS
  • kanezfankanezfan sunny south florida Icrontian
    edited September 2003
    i pretty much started equating intel extreme graphics to intel extreme crap a long time ago. what about S3 savage 3d, woohoo, that was savagely crappy too. I remember getting all excited upon finding out the video card in my first computer was an S3 Trio 3D+, i thought oh yeah baby, that pretty much vanished after watching it stutter through Duke Nukem 3d running at 320x200, remember the good old days, i had to use sometihng called vesa doctor or something, that was awful.
Sign In or Register to comment.