Add Wmode To The Games, Performance Of The Game Is Highly Damaged In Fireforx?
Nov 20, 2010
i am interested in using a popup to show flash games in it, so i did then my interest went to make all games playable in full screen so i did that too and got success, but i am facing issues due to wmode, if you visit my this site link http:[url].....and click on play game for other browsers while using google chrome browser, you will see the error there will be blocks appearing in the game, while if click on play for google chrome then this error is not there, its just because of WMODE, for google chrome button i am using wmode while for all other browsers i am not doing this.the reason for not using wmode to my other browser play button is that if i add wmode to the games then the performance of the game is highly damaged in fireforx and internet explorer, and also to some extent in other browsers including google chrome.it is that i want to get rid of this wmode=opaque thing as it makes the game slow even in google chrome which is effecting game playing quality, i used window,transparent too but nothing good came out of it.some more information i would like to provide so that things work fast, i am using blogger blog, i have knowledge of html,xhtml,css, and for java or jquery its hint and trial.
I have tried downloading fromhttp:[URL]..Theme (wanted UI darkness) but the download when attempting to extract with winrar or 7-zip just comes up with errors. So I tried all the available themes and all display the same error: "The Compressed (zipped) Folder is invalid." using Windows Vista - Extract. "The archive is either in unknown format or damaged - Winrar." "Can not open file - 7-zip
how or where else I can maybe download the 'UI darkness' theme form as my new osCommerce 2.3.1 only as the theme 'redmond' pre-installed ?
I have the following Flash code running the photo stack at top right in this page: [URL]
<script type="text/javascript"> var flashvars = {}; var params = {}; params.wmode = "transparent"; var attributes = {}; swfobject.embedSWF("[URL]", "slider", "650", "260", "9.0.0", "[URL]", false, flashvars, params, attributes); </script>
I'm not that familiar with Flash, but I've used wmode in the past to make a movie have a transparent background. Is something wrong with the syntax here?
So, after doing a whole bunch of z-index troubleshooting, I determined that wmode transparent isn't getting applied to to my flash file on my website. I have a dropdown menu that, in IE, is falling behind the flash. I'm using swfObject 2.2, and I must have an error somewhere because if I use this old method of embedding, everything works fine:
Is this possible? Basically I need to grab all the flash objects on the page (done) and then set the wmode to transparent so it doesn't mess up my DHTML menu.
I'm trying to write some javascript that will always allow me to float content over a flash player. To do this, the <object> tag needs to have a <param> tag added to set the wmode to transparent, and the <embed> tag needs to have the wmode attribute set to transparent also. So the source will first look like:
And I want the javascript to change it to: <object width="560" height="340"> <param name="movie" value="[URL]"></param> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="[URL]" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340" wmode="transparent"> </embed> </object>
The thing is, I currently have code that adds the parameters to the object and the embed tags, but I am unable to float content over the player. The javascript I currently have is: function init(){ var embedCollection = document.getElementsByTagName("embed"); var objectCollection = document.getElementsByTagName("object"); for(i=0;i<objectCollection.length;i++){ var myParam = document.createElement("param"); myParam.setAttribute("name","wmode"); myParam.setAttribute("value","transparent"); objectCollection[i].appendChild(myParam); } for(i=0;i<embedCollection.length;i++){ embedCollection[i].setAttribute("wmode","transparent"); } } window.onload=init;
If I use Firebug to inspect the page after it has loaded, I can see that all the elements have been updated with the appropriate tags and attributes, but the floating content does not appear above the flash player. I'm sure the floating content is coded correctly, because if I hard code the tags and attributes into the HTML instead of using javascript, the floating content appears. I've been told on an IRC chatroom that I need to find away to reload the flash player after I've added my new tags and attributes, so that its aware of the new tags and attributes. How can I use javascript to force the flash player to reload itself?
I am interested in using a popup to show flash games in it, so I did then my interest went to make all games playable in full screen so I did that too and got success, but I am facing issues due to wmode, if you visit my this site link [URL] and click on play game for other browsers while using google chrome browser, you will see the error there will be blocks appearing in the game, while if click on play for google chrome then this error is not there, its just because of WMODE, for google chrome button I am using wmode while for all other browsers I am not doing this.
The reason for not using wmode to my other browser play button is that if I add wmode to the games then the performance of the game is highly damaged in fireforx and internet explorer, and also to some extent in other browsers including google chrome. It is that I want to get rid of this wmode=opaque thing as it makes the game slow even in google chrome which is effecting game playing quality, I used window,transparent too but nothing good came out of it. Only google chrome is asking for the wmode, while our step child internet explorer is happy with it. Some more information I would like to provide so that things work fast, I am using blogger blog, I have knowledge of html, xhtml, css and for java or jquery its hint and trial.
I need to move the entire contents of one div to a sibling div. At present I'm just doing (assuming the 2 divs are called 1st and 2nd):
What I need to know is if this is the quickest means (in performance terms) of doing this as I will be performing the operation regularly and on a large number of nodes and it's in an area where the UX really can't stutter ?
I have some code which creates an extremely long table row, and I've been able to clean it up to a point where my performance is fairly decent. What I am trying to figure out is if its better in terms of speed to use divs as opposed to the really long table row. I didn't really find much on this topic online, so thought I'd ask out here.
I have read many of the copius entries on the subject of IE performance (or the lack thereof) when populating Select Lists.
I don't mind the insert performance so much, (I get 100x120byte rows inserted/sec up to 500, and 100rows/6secs up to 3000, which isn't great but then the Row Count is clicking away for the user to see and they can hit the "cancel" button at anytime, so overall I'm happy), what really disappoints me is the woeful of .REMOVE()!
Before fetching the next result-set I clear down the existing options (I *do* have to do this don't I?) by looping through option collection calling remove(1). (Would it be quicker if I removed the last option? Option[0] is a header.) For 3000 rows this takes an unbelievable 20+secs :-( Does this sound about right?
1) Is it only IE that performs badly on this?
2) Is there a quicker or more efficient way of zeroing the Select List?
2a) The w3schools ref says the "length" attribute "Returns the number of options in a dropdown list" it doesn't say "sets Or returns"
2b) The French guy (Stephane?) suggested that I should just set the length to zero, but wouldn't that result in a memory leak?
3) Do I need to create a malloc/realloc function that keeps a high-water mark of available option objects for this Drop Down and only "new" some more options when that's exceeded? (But then the Length would always be off)
I just tested all my jQuery selectors using the jQuery Tester [url], and the results seem to "contradict" one thing I read in a performance article: that you should descend from the closest parent ID when using classes in your selector (the article says "April 09", so the latest jQuery version was already available). In my tests, using just the class selector (like span.myClass) was always fastest (sometimes twice as fast as #myDiv span.myClass), and this in all browsers I tested, not just the ones supporting getElementsByClassName. Maybe descending from the closest parent ID becomes a factor when you have a lot of elements on you page?
I pull XML from server using .load() and then iterate with .each() over some 3000 nodes. I use .find() to get 7 sub-nodes and store them internally (into arrays). It works, but it is disappointingly slow. On my obsolete P4 it can take 8-10 seconds during which the whole browser (FF) is completely frozen. On faster computers the processing time is shorter, but still way too long. What can I do to cut this time? I certainly need speed up of an order, two orders would be nice. Would JSON be any faster? Or should I pull text/plain in custom format and parse it in my JS code?
I have a php search page with can potentially display several hundred records. For each record, there is an icon which, when clicked, makes an ajax call. When the reply comes back, the text returned from the server script is added to a specific div and the source of the icon that the user clicked is changed (as a visual cue that that particular item was selected).
This works 100% perfect in FireFox (3.5.9), Chrome, and IE 7. However when I test it in IE 8 there is a HUGE lag between when the icon is clicked and when the div and icon are updated (usually between 10-15 seconds). By commenting out one line at a time, I've narrowed it down to the line that changes the src attribute of the icon...if I just comment that line out, the ajax call is made and the div is updated instantaneously.
How to improve the web site loading performance. My current site takes average time 18 sec. to load in first time. and 2nd time refresh it takes 12 sec. through YSlow I am observing the request time it more. how to achieve the better performance. My html code is very much clean and w3c validated.
I've been working on a redesign of our site at ExperiencePlus for some time now, and long ago chose CBE menu 9 over the other menu technologies out there because of its browser independance. Problem is, as you can see, we have a pretty large site; load-times for the menus and associated scripts are approaching prohibitive. So I'm trying to speed things up.
You can see the results of some simplification here - still about the same speed by my guesstimates.
So, my question is twofold, I guess. First, Mike, do you have any ideas about how long it will take X menu 4 to reach maturity? No pressure ;^) If it were ready now, I'd just drop CBE in favor of X.
Second question: How much performance improvement can I expect from removing unnecessary code (sliding, for example) from the CBE core files? I haven't played with that stuff at all, except to read it now & then when looking for solutions to problems. Does anyone have a similarly large implementation of CBE menu9 that runs faster, so that perhaps they could share their experience?
One final thing: I'm planning to eventually shove all this into a PHP document that will auto-generate chunks of the menu from database queries, especially around the tour & country listings and our "Resource Room." (X menu 4 looks like it would be vastly superior for that purpose, since it's so lean.) I'm interested in hearing from anybody who's tried to do something like this, whether they succeeded or not.
I have client that has 5 versions of the same site located in web viewable root folders on his server. Aside from a few minor differences such as prices, download url's and a few text and image differences, they're the same.
Just wanted to get some opinion as to how many javascript includes I can, or should, use on the site pages or if there are any strong opinions on not doing it this way.
I'd like to place a set of javascipt files in a folder within each site, then have all pages in each site call to their specific include folder. This way I'll be able to use a single set of DW templates to manage the content on all the sites.
I can't convert to php, use ssi nor create a dynamic solution since the sites are already live and rank well in the search engines, The content I'll be wrapping in the includes is not important search engine text content.
I am working on a list which displays a large number of contacts (400 to 500 for a typical user). Currently, I am using Dojo (customized widgit) which is created 400 times (once for each contact).This of course is resulting in alot of rendering delay. What is the best approach to display large lists in HTML/javascript? Each list item needs to have an image.
I am developing a project. to calculate a key performance index (KPI) using javascript and HTML. the calculation should be in client side, and it calculate automatic after user input the value.i am very new with javascript, and i need help from all frens here..[URL]
Method 2: $("<div />").attr("id", "myId").addClass("one two three").width(100).height(100).css("z-index", 1).appendTo("body");
I imagine that when using the first method, jQuery does some string processing and eventually ends up doing the same thing as method #2. Is that correct? If so is there a significant performance cost for this? Overall I think the first method is better as far as readability goes but it would be good to also know its effect on performance.
This questions mainly regards using google's analytics code on some of our websites. We currently place the code at the footer as it can hinder load times if placed further up in the page.
For this, or in general use, is placing javascript in the BODY or HEAD better for one or the other as far as load times? Can placing scripts in one or the other allow the page to load concurrently with the script and not sequentially?
I have a nice javascript slideshow but it kills the rendering speed of my home page. According to Yahoo performance guru(s), javascript gets run before other stuff is rendered, so you fix that by putting the js code "at the end" of the html file.
Putting it at the end puts the slideshow at the bottom which is not the desired result. And even abs positioning is slave to the <div> structure.
How do I nullify the flow just for this one thing (I don't want to make the whole page absolute).
I am trying to complete a javascript application and am having problems with code similar to that show below.
Much testing has shown that Firefox finishes the code shown in around 0.25 secs but Internet Explorer 6 takes a massive 3.5 secs! Internet Explorer 7 gets it down to around 2 seconds - but that's still 8 times slower than Firefox and way unacceptable for my userbase.
Looking through the newsgroups there is some discussion around the differences between the way the two browsers handle arrays - but a performance differential such as this is just unbelievably dismal.
Unfortunately I need to continue to use arrays of objects and have to support the Internet Explorer client base. I have already added specification of the array size and also removed the use of array "push"ing - flattening the array is not really an option. Code:
