Free air core coil designer program

I want people to stay updated. This also allows me to change the web interface of MiscEl, without having to maintain two sets of web pages forever.

What browser are your using, I have tested with MS and Firefox, they can both show the pages.

Your must have a problem with your contrast setting on your monitor, I have used that backgound for some years and nobody has complained before.

Steve Gibson does something similar with his freeware, but his apps that time out assume that if you are using them, you are online.

You should make the time-out notice more obvious

--on ALL the MiscEl-related pages of your site.

You should also specify what happens when the limit is reached. It would be really irritating if someone is using it someplace without an Internet connection--and the app just quits. . .

Again, some clueless guy asks, "What browser are you using?". IT SHOULDN'T MATTER WHAT BROWSER I AM USING. It's the INTERNET: a homogeneous network with a hetrogeneous infrastructure. If you write the page so that it validates, NO ONE will have trouble with it.

In addition, an unvalidated page that renders TODAY has no guarantee it will render TOMORROW: http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:anfcojCuGwgJ:evolt.org/node/60115+*-screwed-these-*-up+*-*-broken-links-everywhere+Large-sections-*-*-disappeared+zz-zz+*-didn't-support-*-proprietary-*-*-*-*-*-*+only-includes-Netscape-*+qq+table-layout-images-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*+-*-*-*-*-incorrect-content-type-header+it-did-not (Scroll down 20% to Jim Dabell's submission.) . .

I have my system set for my crummy eyes. The image is a marginal inconvenience (I could turn off images completely to read the text), but now that you do have a complaint, I would think that, rather than getting defensive, a minor tweak wouldn't put you out too much.

No way.

Maybe it would be a good ide to let MiscEl show a warning some time before it runs out (Thanks for the idea).

PS: I say 1/2 year, but in fact the time is a few months more.

Last time I checked not many pages on the internet would pass a validator.

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:anfcojCuGwgJ:evolt.org/node/60115+*-screwed-these-*-up+*-*-broken-links-everywhere+Large-sections-*-*-disappeared+zz-zz+*-didn't-support-*-proprietary-*-*-*-*-*-*+only-includes-Netscape-*+qq+table-layout-images-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*+-*-*-*-*-incorrect-content-type-header+it-did-not

If I get reports about problems with a specific browser, I will look at it.

I want the background to be visible. I few year ago I had complains about it and did some adjustment to it, but now the graphic is so weak that I can not adjust more, if I want it visible.

Perhaps the problem he is seeing is related to the bad code...

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:anfcojCuGwgJ:evolt.org/node/60115+*-screwed-these-*-up+*-*-broken-links-everywhere+Large-sections-*-*-disappeared+zz-zz+*-didn't-support-*-proprietary-*-*-*-*-*-*+only-includes-Netscape-*+qq+table-layout-images-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*+-*-*-*-*-incorrect-content-type-header+it-did-not

With that kind of attitude, your traffic will decrease, and if you continue with that attitude, the traffic will tend to zero. Anyone trying to sell something (even if the price is zero) must listen to the customers and accomidate them as much as possible. The greater the price, the more burden the seller has in that manner.

I spent a long time in making all of my HTML pages (over 40 unique ones) validate, and all (except one) do so. The one exception does not validate due to the fact that W3C refuses to recognize "embed" which seems to be uniformily recognized by (most? all?) browsers.

Do your known a webside called google? It does not validate

How would that be possible?

Are your saying that it is a bad idea to adjust the layout when customers complain? ;)

I do that. I known from my web statistic how may people are looking on my pages and a single complain about the background is not enough to make me change something I do not agree with.

I have received other complains and if I agree with them I will usual fix the problem very fast.

And my webpages also works on all browsers (as far as I known). I belive that if I am following the standard I might even get trouble with some browsers (Some version of MS).

If you were, your pages would validate. W3C (The WorldWide Web Consortium) are the folks who SET the standards for Web presentation. If you can't pass their Validator, you haven't followed the standard.

When websites like google can work without following the standard, I do not see why I have to follow the standard?

But I do not know why we are discussing this, it has nothing to do with my software. The software works fine without using the web.

Think: "Demonstration of Ability to Code Properly"

Do you also ignore errors thrown by your compiler?

HTML validation seems to be a process similar to having a microsoft product check your grammar.

Pointless, at this time.

It might provide handy pointers in tracking down reasons for misreading of a certain page, though.

Obviously un-validated HTML is generally comprehensible, or it wouldn't survive. Considering the variations in 'encoding' and 'doctype' available, misapplication of both is probably next to impossible to avoid.

Try valdating the W3 page to an older encoding or varyig doctype..........

RL

I belive your are clueless about use of the html standard. W3C may be the official standard, but many websites prefer to check with browsers and do not follow the W3C standard. When companies like google do not follow the standard I see no reason to follow it. I might change the web site to be closer to the standard if I decide to redo the it, but at the current time is has a very low priority. Adding more help pages on the web and adding more function to MiscEl has higher priority.

How I code does not really matter as long as my software works, people that has to work with my code is happy with it and I get enough money to survive.

An because I do not need extra money, I give away my program for free:

And I do not understand your notion of "Crippleware", the program your get from my web site is the full and only version of the program. It is not a special restricted version of the program, your can not buy a license or anything else for the program. The price for using the program are two downloads each year, nothing less, nothing more.

Rob, Your analogy would be valid

--if M$ was the sole maintainer of the "grammar" standard. . .

Writing HTML is like working to ISO9000: You get to choose the mark you want to hit

--all you have to do is pick one and stick to it.

Yeah, I'm with you..... see

That validates coz I've got a simple head. All my pages validate and people believe I know what I am fumbling with.

Now someone is going to tell me I need to make it 'strict' and have problems with the particular shade of purple.

Num Num Num

If you are happy with what you have got then 'f*ck em'.

If they want to blither about a piece of shaftware that runs under windblows then they should go f*ck themselves.

DNA

Well, you're *aware* of the deviations. That's better than a lot of folks who publish Web pages.

For decades now, folks have been putting out *shareware* and trying to get people to abide by the license

--without making the app "nagware".

One unobtrusive way I've seen is to make a screen that appears when closing the app. A warning on a text bar on the screen with the expiration date would be another.

You've already said that a more obvious notice within the app of the time limits of the app is a good idea.[1] The inclusion of this kind of closing screen or some other mention of the fact that the app has limitations would placate my objection.

It would still be crippleware, but *that* would be obvious to all. (The opposite of crippleware is a program you can use without it ever going dead or changing to a less-robust mode.)

The simile is is misapplied.

ISO9000 covers the documentation manufacturing procedure, not the effect of the procedure nor the style, format or even the content of the documentation, to a large extent.

When we validate something, we look for substantial proof of it's effectiveness, we don't simply criticize it's appearance. When people say that one or another browsers have no obvious problem handling a web page, they are providing this substantiation.

Software can be validated; by specific definition in this case, with the aim of ensuring that it 'complies with requirements'. Perhaps this is where the W3 procedure of HTML validation might be useful - in warning of the potential for problems. W3 does do not do this, probably because it requires more judgment than a simple text analysis can provide.

A great deal of HTML is produced by simple composer and editor utilities. The page's author may never read the code, as English writers may never consult a grammar book or dictionary, and yet the result can be effective. Perhaps the plethora of evolving encoding standards and the retroactive application of their conditions is to blame.

Policing a language has proven futile before. We need no further demonstration of this futile activity.

validation n 1: the act of validating; finding or testing the truth of something [syn: {proof}, {substantiation}] 2: the cognitive process of establishing a valid proof [syn: {establishment}]

RL

So far, so good.

I have already refuted this, very early in the thread and provided an example where this philosophy fell apart: :::In addition, an unvalidated page that renders TODAY :::has no guarantee it will render TOMORROW: :::http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:anfcojCuGwgJ:evolt.org/node/60115+*-screwed-these-*-up+*-*-broken-links-everywhere+Large-sections-*-*-disappeared+zz-zz+*-didn't-support-*-proprietary-*-*-*-*-*-*+only-includes-Netscape-*+qq+table-layout-images-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*+-*-*-*-*-incorrect-content-type-header+it-did-not :::(Scroll down 20% to Jim Dabell's submission.)

We all know about the complexity of software (expecially VERSIONS) and the Law of Unintended Consequences. Writing to a particular browser's characteristics (especially a specific version of a browser) is a lousy idea.

Application that works that ways usual does it to make people pay money. With my program your are not loosing any license to use it, your just has to update it.

I will not make it "nagware" so it will be more discrete, only popping starting to pop up a few weeks before the program runs out. And it will provide a link to my webpage, like the "times up" screen does.

The time limit is no secret, it is in one of the first lines on my webpage (Your picked it up quite fast).

By your definition most antivirus and also lots of other programs is crippleware.

As long as they have an internet connection , they just need to press a few buttons* and they are running with the newest version.

• The few buttons are:

I could have made an automatic "phone home" function in the program. That would secure your always had a new version, but I am agains "phone home" programs