Guest SlipstreamSolutions Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 (edited) New from SlipstreamSolutions.co.uk... mTimeSync for Smartphone! mTimeSync is a .NET application to keep your Smartphone clock automatically synchronized with atomic NTP time servers on the Internet. mTimeSync uses a minimal amount of bandwidth and its rich, intuitive interface allows a user to select from a number of options, including:Configurable settings, including server name, NTP string and NTP port.Automatic polling, including synchronization every N-minutes and N-retries of a failed sync (optional).Primary and Secondary NTP time servers for failover and reliability.Automatically dials if not connected (optional).Automatically starts synchronizing when the application is run (optional).Automatically runs in the background.Supports worldwide time zones and daylight saving times.All you need on your Smartphone is Microsoft .NET Compact Framework and a connection to the Internet (such as GPRS). www.SlipstreamSolutions.co.uk Edited March 17, 2005 by SlipstreamSolutions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil Lee Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 FYI your website doesn't work in Firefox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tudor Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 FYI your website doesn't work in Firefox. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Then get a more powerful browser, like Internet Explorer :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest badlad Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 FYI your website doesn't work in Firefox. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Its does work .... just very badly :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Confucious Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 I would have had a look at this but as I use Firefox I can't. If a company can't even use proper standards for it's website does one have to question the standards used in their software? :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tudor Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 (edited) Why do people blame the webmaster for the site not being diplayed properly and not the Firefox browser for not being able to display it? The issue is that Internet Explorer CAN and Firefox CAN NOT display the page, and I don't think it's fair to judge the company by Firefox's ability to display a page. And... before you question this... I'm not related to this company, nor am I interested in their product - it's just a matter of principle. Edited March 17, 2005 by tudor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gcparris Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Tudor, not wishing to slate you but you obviously don't really know too much about web page design standards then :D Why do people blame the webmaster for the site not being diplayed properly and not the Firefox browser for not being able to display it? The issue is that Internet Explorer CAN and Firefox CAN NOT display the page, and I don't think it's fair to judge the company by Firefox's ability to display a page. And... before you question this... I'm not related to this company, nor am I interested in their product - it's just a matter of principle. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tudor Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Tudor, not wishing to slate you but you obviously don't really know too much about web page design standards then :D <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, I do know, but I also appreciate the capability of Internet Explorer to cope even with poorly written pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Confucious Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 No, it just means that Micro$oft change the rules to suit themselves. If people want to write their web pages so only IE users can view them then fine. It's there problem, I'm nopt going to use IE just to suit them.. If they don't want me to view their page I wont. If they want their pages to be viewable by most people they shouls use agreed standards. Fine by me either way. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chucky.egg Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Actually, I do know, but I also appreciate the capability of Internet Explorer to cope even with poorly written pages. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is all kind of OT, but... You say we shouldn't judge the company based on Firefox's ability to display the page, and then say that their page(s) are poorly written. So in effect the judgement of the company is based on their ability to produce a working web page and not on Firefox's ability to display it. Anyways, mTIMEsync is not as interesting to me as mGALsync... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tudor Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 OK guys, here are my APOLOGIES :oops: I've just had a brief look before on their home page's source code and it all seemed clean to me, except for some redundant tags, that's why I've defended them. The idea that Firefox would not be able to display it made me question the quality of the browser. However, I've just installed Firefox now to check and the home page renders fine, but there are other pages that don't show up ok, and IT IS poor design. I think it's due to FrontPage and the WYSIWYG design. Still, I don't think we should judge the application by the look of the web page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Confucious Posted March 17, 2005 Report Share Posted March 17, 2005 Tudor - when I suggested that we should it WAS tongue in cheek. Never take anything I say to seriously - I don't :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Belgarath Krall Posted March 18, 2005 Report Share Posted March 18, 2005 so i can update my phone's clock (which doesn't lose more than a few minutes over a few months i imagine) over the air with a pay-for gprs connection...or use activesync for free like pretty much every smartphone user here ...sorry to be cynical, or have i missed the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SlipstreamSolutions Posted March 21, 2005 Report Share Posted March 21, 2005 Hi guys, apologies for the incompatibility problems with FireFox. :oops: I have soundly beaten my web designer (which he actually seemed to quite enjoy) and the pages are now displaying correctly. Joanne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sunoke Posted March 21, 2005 Report Share Posted March 21, 2005 The problem is not the incompatibility with firefox, but not following a html standard. When I validate your web page it is still full of errors. If you fix those the page and the page does comply, for example to the html 4.01 transitional standard, it can be correctly interpreted by a browser that complies with that standard (most browsers do). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SlipstreamSolutions Posted March 21, 2005 Report Share Posted March 21, 2005 Hi sunoke, cheers for the tip. I've passed it along with a few comments... :evil: ...and looks like they're getting busy. Jo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts