Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

- - e r i k - - · Oct 14, 2003, 05:07 AM

Mmmm. CSS. Fast. Sleek. Me like

Peter · Oct 14, 2003, 05:10 AM

Macupdate is nicer IMO.

philzilla · Oct 14, 2003, 05:12 AM

yes, but you'd think they'd go the whole hog and make it XHTML compliant:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

evidently not

(it doesn't even validate as valid HTML)

dillerX · Oct 14, 2003, 05:25 AM

Originally posted by philzilla:
yes, but you'd think they'd go the whole hog and make it XHTML compliant: evidently not

(it doesn't even validate as valid HTML)

Heh, I was gonna say something to that effect.

catsank · Oct 14, 2003, 05:25 AM

May be just a temporary glitch but my
rendering of VT does not look anything like
your screen shot.

I like the look of DejaMenu :
- access the menubar as a contextual menu,

http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/21184

Luca Rescigno · Oct 14, 2003, 05:52 AM

Lookin' great in OS 8!

Oh... umm...

Lookin' fine in OS 9!

No, that's not it...

Aww crap, I can't think of a rhyme for OS X. Unless I really stretch it and you pronounce it "Oh Ess Eks," then I could say "Diggin' the effects in OS X" but that's still dumb.

It looks fine to me. A year ago that site was total crap... pressing buttons would take me to little useless GIF images and basically all the pictures and buttons on the site were completely messed up. It's much better now. I still prefer MacUpdate, but VersionTracker has a wider selection of software.

- - e r i k - - · Oct 14, 2003, 06:23 AM

I didn't like their last revision, but this is definitly a step in the right direction.

In comparison MacUpdate looks practically garish. And there's a half-full screen of junk before I actually get content...blah.

Web-pages as well as any interface should be as unobtrusive as possible. VT definitely fits the bill for me. Now with almost no minimum page-width too.

mitchell_pgh · Oct 14, 2003, 08:41 AM

not bad... I love VT...

Millennium · Oct 14, 2003, 08:50 AM

Nice look. Shame it's still bad code. Not just in terms of not being valid HTML, either; it's very poorly optimized.

Ad for the HTML/XHTML debate: at this point, it's still moot. Most browsers still render XHTML as tag soup, unless you send with the proper MIME type, but if you do that then IE completely breaks, so no one bothers to do that. Not that it matters; HTML is still every bit as compliant as XHTML.

macupdate · Oct 15, 2003, 02:50 PM

In comparison MacUpdate looks practically garish. And there's a half-full screen of junk before I actually get content...blah.

Actually, if you load both sites up in windows that are the same size, the content on MacUpdate starts HIGHER than VersionTracker. Not sure why you'd would think otherwise.

Adam Betts · Oct 15, 2003, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by macupdate:
Actually, if you load both sites up in windows that are the same size, the content on MacUpdate starts HIGHER than VersionTracker. Not sure why you'd would think otherwise.

Huh?

I know if I leave ads there, it's probably similar or longer but luckily there's a way to turn ads off in VT unlike MacUpdate.

- - e r i k - - · Oct 15, 2003, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
Huh?

http://homepage.mac.com/adambetts/Ma...Comparison.gif

I know if I leave ads there, it's probably similar or longer but luckily there's a way to turn ads off in VT unlike MacUpdate.

Beat me to it:

I count 11 listings on VT before MacUpdate starts. That's a lot of wasted space.

macupdate · Oct 16, 2003, 11:20 AM

Well, if you want to write a check to MacUpdate for $20, I'll let you disable the ads on the site. It's pretty obvious that you're paying VersionTracker for that capability, so it shouldn't count against MacUpdate - a free site.

Image below shows the REAL height, if you don't pay VT.

andi*pandi · Oct 16, 2003, 11:49 AM

i think .mac gives free VT... at least I think getting some mail about it.

either way. both sites look nice.

Adam Betts · Oct 16, 2003, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by macupdate:
Well, if you want to write a check to MacUpdate for $20, I'll let you disable the ads on the site. It's pretty obvious that you're paying VersionTracker for that capability, so it shouldn't count against MacUpdate - a free site.

BTW, seriously if you would like some people to switch to MacUpdate, there's something need to be done with the layout. Frankly, it feels too "template-ish" and ugly.

Try for a layout that is very simple yet nice. Integration and Consistency is the key.

King Bob On The Cob · Oct 16, 2003, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by macupdate:
Well, if you want to write a check to MacUpdate for $20, I'll let you disable the ads on the site. It's pretty obvious that you're paying VersionTracker for that capability, so it shouldn't count against MacUpdate - a free site.

Image below shows the REAL height, if you don't pay VT.

No we just use Pith Helmet which can block out ad images.
Macupdate uses Ad text, which can't be easily blocked.

- - e r i k - - · Oct 16, 2003, 12:39 PM

I'd switch to MacUpdate in a heartbeat if it just looked and used space better. For now VersionTracker is still king, as they were when I put out software in 1996-8.

VT is not perfect, but you feel you get your money's worth by paying for it. And you get a year free with .mac. (except I had already renewed

)

CheesePuff · Oct 16, 2003, 12:40 PM

Maybe I'd switch, but because of a simple comment I made here on these forums about MU about 6 months ago and received a rude e-mail from the owner, I still use VT. I also have the Pro membership with no ads a couple of other nice features.