Browser problem
 

I'm having problems viewing Java web pages. The pages load blank with "Done" in the bottom left corner. Refresh does not work but going Back then Forward usually works. Anyone with advice much appreciated.

I'm running IE6, with Java 1.1.4. Everything is set to default!

Rgds mcdude

If you are using Windows XP you need to download from the microsoft web site the Java Virtual Machine

http://www.microsoft.com/java/vm/dl_vm40.htm

Microsoft decided not to include the JVM as part of XP due to litigation with Sun Microsystems.

I have just re-read your post and you seem to be saying that sometimes Java works and sometimes it doesn't - if this is the case are you using any type of firewall? try turning off the firewall and re-check your security settings in IE
:)

Thanks for the tips - I'm on W98 but your advice got me to the Microsoft website where I downloaded a update patch for IE6 - problem now solved. Thanks

mcdude
I have the same problem, and it's very irritating.
Which patch did you download?
Apologies for being lazy, but as you've already done the research ............... :)

Well, since the subject comes up, here is my answer to a chum who asked me about how to get the M$ JVM


Here is is $%^&%@#*&%$,
But please read my post right to the end first.
Pick it the M$ JVM (5.5Mb) up from
http://www.microsoft.com/java/vm/dl_vm40.htm
You can't uninstall it....

Read the EULA at http://www.microsoft.com/java/vm/vmeula40.htm
and read M$'s ingenuous "explanation" of why it isn't included in XP
at http://www.microsoft.com/java/issues/openletter.htm

A 5.5 Mb download is a pretty expensive call for those of us
who connect overs POTS at 56K on a per-minute basis (much of the world).
And that doesn't factor in downloads that time out at 96% :(
so you have to start all over again. Only the determined succeed.

This JVM conforms to M$'s implementation of Java, departing in a number
of aspects from the Sun standard - the cross-platform threat to M$'s
dominance is thus limited.

But you can pick up Sun's latest JVM for 95/98/2000/ME/XP/NT 4.0
(also about 5.5MB) at http://java.sun.com/getjava/download.html
Be sure to read the installation notes at
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4/jre/install-windows.html

So you have the choice, use M$'s "proprietary" version of Java
which will integrate more smoothly with Windows and (probably) not
stuff up your installation. Or install Sun's version of the Java
standard that they developed which will integrate less tightly and
which Windows is not optimised for (but which should function OK
unless M$ have coded XP to disadvantage the Sun version).

I'll probably install the MS JVM on one machine and the Sun JVM on
another of my three Win98SE home machines. Unfortunately they differ
considerably physically (P1/200,P2/233 and P3/800) and in setup so
comparing any results will be difficult.

Your choice....

See http://iwsun4.infoworld.com/articles...19hnjavaup.xml
for a good discussion of the situation and Microsoft's reasons.

"We will phase it out, but at this point we want to make sure people can have it on demand," Kasiviswanathan said.

The first time XP users try to view a Web site or use an application that requires a JVM, they will get a prompt to download Microsoft's JVM from its Web site, he said. At that point, they can opt to skip that download and choose another JVM instead.

"..Java supporters said the extra steps to download the 5MB program and get it to run safely on a computer could eventually hinder consumers and developers from supporting Java moving forward.

"It's not something the average consumer should have to do," Shikiar said. "Also, from a fairness standpoint, if I'm a developer I need to know what I can develop for."

Very very few 56K dialup users will spend 1-2 hours and per-minute dialup charges to download the JVM "on demand". They'll just skip that site and move to a non-Java site. If .NET takes hold and site developers take advantage, users will be told that they require XP to view the page.

Bingo! Another XP copy sold. You have to admire their cheek!

Any info. on that patch and what it was supposed to correct would be interesting.