 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| 0 user currently in Suggestions/Bug Reports. |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - Suggestions/Bug Reports - Idea! *ding* |
 |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
|
Xkeeper The required libraries have not been defined. Level: NAN  Posts: -4051/-863 EXP: NAN For next: 0 Since: 03-15-04 Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: -753366 sec. |
| ||
| I do too, although the fact it'd always put Tuvai as the one ahead [with -200 something posts] ... eh. Although that, on the other hand, doesn't seem as hard to implement  |
|||
Modereb Paragoomba Level: 15 Posts: 26/75 EXP: 14749 For next: 1635 Since: 06-04-04 Since last post: 350 days Last activity: 339 days |
| ||
| If you look at giving the board flexibility, you could add options for everything; not just the NEW/OFF images, but the banner, avatars, icons, etcetera. And it's not like it would be hard to add at all. But, that involves another important factor, SQL resources. The last thing you want to have on a site or forum is too much SQL resource usage. Everything would become slow as hell and without a doubt, you'd be unable to enter the board plenty of times because of SQL downage. The post layout disabling option is wonderful, and I actually have the disabled all the times because most of the people either screw them up (and even worse, optimize them for Internet Explorer in sloppy HTML only), or people use huge background images in them which sometimes reach a whopping 100 KB in filesize, or worse. Now disabling/enabling that, can matter a bunch of seconds sometimes, unlike the NEW/OFF images, of which the loading isn't even noticable. Adding an option for that would be a waste of the SQL resource usage, even if it would be a simple boolean. |
|||
|
Xkeeper The required libraries have not been defined. Level: NAN Posts: -4034/-863 EXP: NAN For next: 0 Since: 03-15-04 Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: -753366 sec. |
| ||
Originally posted by ModerebI try and keep them on for the people who DON'T use IE. It was kind of funny to note that my v1 layout worked in Opera only, IE didn't show the left column... <--- ...hence the sig image I stole. I try and keep my layouts small [even my giant red one was only 15KB... this one's around 7, and even then I could easily lower it even more [1-bit-per-pixel image on the left, anyone? That'll kill it] as opposed to some anime layout with high-quality JPGs so it looks purdy and complicated with 100KB ... I remember this line froM AIM: Me: My layouts are almost always under 20KB at the most. Cymoro: 56kers salute you. Own. ;P But yes, he's still got a point and it's only getting better to read the more posts he makes  |
|||
Elric Chasupa  Currently Playing: You Like A Lute. Level: 40 Posts: 227/687 EXP: 440016 For next: 1293 Since: 03-15-04 From: Melniboné Since last post: 6 hours Last activity: 6 hours |
| ||
| Actually, depending on how it's done, there aren't any SQL queries to be made. For example, I have all kinds of custom things on my board, like banners, NEW/OFF (et al) icons, etc. and they're all defined by the scheme you're using. Now, I seem to remember reading somewhere that the schemes are now stored in the DB, so if that's the case, then yes, there would be a lot of SQL queries. I guess, in theory, certain things could be set in the cookie set by the board when you log in... *shrugs* |
|||
|
Modereb Paragoomba Level: 15 Posts: 29/75 EXP: 14749 For next: 1635 Since: 06-04-04 Since last post: 350 days Last activity: 339 days |
| ||
| Cookies don't last forever and thus aren't a nice way to store long-term settings. And how were you intending to store user-settings such as enabling/disabling OFF/NEW graphics in a scheme database record? Not saying it isn't possible, but it's far from a proper sollution. The proper way to store long-term settings is still a database (or files, though SQL is better), and for that you get extra SQL resource usage. Which in this case, I wouldn't bother adding. Hello?! We're talking about <500B images, not even worth the time of adding the radio buttons necesarily to disable them. |
|||
|
HyperLamer <||bass> and this was the soloution i thought of that was guarinteed to piss off the greatest amount of people Sesshomaru Tamaranian Level: 118 Posts: 1010/8210 EXP: 18171887 For next: 211027 Since: 03-15-04 From: Canada, w00t! LOL FAD Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by Modereb Originally posted by Neko-Areksuchan Oh NO. A whole one extra bit per user, and 2 seconds of load time. We're doomed.  I don't know about the rest of you, but I have had to wait for the images to load and draw on several occasions. I've had to wait for my layout to load and draw a total of zero times. And XK, you're the only one who's reported any such problems, so I can't exactly say why it's not drawing right for you. Filters? Edited config files? |
|||
|
Elric Chasupa Currently Playing: You Like A Lute. Level: 40 Posts: 228/687 EXP: 440016 For next: 1293 Since: 03-15-04 From: Melniboné Since last post: 6 hours Last activity: 6 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by ModerebCan't you set the cookie to expire say, in 3000? And you could also set up a single plain scheme with no NEW/OFF graphics.  But yeah, just coding it as an option would probably be the easiest/best way. Originally posted by HyperHackerOK, fine. This thread took me awhile to load due to your layout. It took awhile to download the images. For some reason, my monitor wasn't getting a signal when I woke up and came in here, so I had to reboot. When that was done, and I decided to surf the net, I noticed that my IE cache seems to have vanished, since none of the links I visit everyday were visited. This means I have to redownload everything again, to recache it. And no, I'm not just saying that your layout took awhile to load. I use Naviscope, and it shows me what files are downloading. The ones that took the longest were the ones for your layout. And I'm connected at 46.6k currently. At the bottom of the thread, it said that the page was rendered in 8.535 seconds. Meanwhile, the index page rendered in 1.542 seconds. And I just loaded General Chat in another window, and it took 2.156 seconds. After I post this, I'll edit it and post how long it took to render the thread with my reply, and cached graphics. Edit It took 8.261 seconds, but this time it was because cymoro.com didn't seem to be responding... Pleh. (edited by Elric on 06-16-04 05:08 PM) |
|||
|
Modereb Paragoomba Level: 15 Posts: 31/75 EXP: 14749 For next: 1635 Since: 06-04-04 Since last post: 350 days Last activity: 339 days |
| ||
| Elric, I'm not talking about cookies expiring, but they just don't last forever. Everyone cleans or loses cookies once in a while. They're known for not lasting long enough to store long-term settings. And Hyperhacker, again you don't know what you're talking about. Sure, it's a boolean, one byte, that is STORED IN THE DATABASE, but the matter with databases is that they need to be connected to, and queried, which takes time and uses resources. The resource usage gets even heavier if more and more needs to be queried every time. I'm starting to get annoyed with this thread. You're trying to counter my arguments with bullshit and you're pretty much claiming I'm overexaggerating, while yet, you are the one who's making a whole issue about these <500B images. And you NEVER had to wait for your layout to load, while you did have to wait seconds for the NEW/OFF graphics to load? I know that's bullshit, you know that's bullshit, and everyone else in this thread knows it's bullshit. It's impossible for you to have to wait seconds for you to load a <500B image even if you're on an antique 14.4 KB/s connection, unless the server is taking it's time to 'answer' your request, or is 'down' for a second or two; but in the meantime your >100KB layout takes 'a total of zero loading time'. Too...much...bullshit... |
|||
|
HyperLamer <||bass> and this was the soloution i thought of that was guarinteed to piss off the greatest amount of people Sesshomaru Tamaranian Level: 118 Posts: 1028/8210 EXP: 18171887 For next: 211027 Since: 03-15-04 From: Canada, w00t! LOL FAD Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by Modereb Then maybe that was the problem. I don't usually have to wait for the images, but it happens. My files are stored on another server whose bandwidth usage is a lot lower, plus they never change. (Not to mention, there's not as many of them in one page.) BTW, I'm not saying the layout has zero load time, that's ridiculous. I'm saying I never have to wait for it. When I load up a thread, other layouts loading slow me down just enough that by the time I get to mine, it's done already. |
|||
|
Xkeeper The required libraries have not been defined. Level: NAN Posts: -3999/-863 EXP: NAN For next: 0 Since: 03-15-04 Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: -753366 sec. |
| ||
Originally posted by HyperHackerSo you're saying that, if you posted first [and not way down a thread], you'd have to wait? Aftera ll, what you just said was that the reason you didn't have to wait was because it took you so long to get down to it. You're stuck, face it. If you hate the tiiiiiny little "NEW" Graphics that take soooooooooo long to display/render [as opposed to your layout, which takes forever. Let's see. Loading a cache-free version of your layout took countless redraws as every single image was placed, moving the entire layout around. And again, and again. It was almost funny to see my comp lag a bit while doing it, just proving how stupid of an idea this was. Next I tried loading thread.php with a threads-per-page count of ... oh, about 999. It's kind of funny how it rendered EVERY IMAGE/THREAD ICON/TABLE TAG/ETC in less time than it took to do your pitiful layout; I had to wait for the table to load, that's it. Soon as it did, wham. All images drawn and rendered instantaneously. Just stop trying; it's never going to be implemented, get over it. The end. |
|||
|
HyperLamer <||bass> and this was the soloution i thought of that was guarinteed to piss off the greatest amount of people Sesshomaru Tamaranian Level: 118 Posts: 1040/8210 EXP: 18171887 For next: 211027 Since: 03-15-04 From: Canada, w00t! LOL FAD Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by Neko-Areksuchan A little, sure, but that's usually equal to the amount of time it takes to actually draw the page.
I think it's already been established that either Opera or something you're running hates my layout. It's hardly fair to judge by it when you can't even get it to display right. (That might be my fault, I'm really not sure, but one way or another there's a problem.) It only makes sense that it's going to act up drawing too.
And I bet your computer doesn't suck either.  This thing lags displaying a freaking menu. Of course a good computer is going to draw them nice and quickly. (Plus, like I mentioned, that's what usually happens. It's maybe 1 in 20 times I have to actually wait.) |
|||
|
Elric Chasupa Currently Playing: You Like A Lute. Level: 40 Posts: 230/687 EXP: 440016 For next: 1293 Since: 03-15-04 From: Melniboné Since last post: 6 hours Last activity: 6 hours |
| ||
| Fine. You think your PC sucks. MINE is worse. I guarntee it. It's a Pentium @ 233MHz. When I next get on it, I'll set it to 999 threads per page, on my dial-up connection, and see how long it takes. I bet it doesn't take long at all. | |||
goodall Double hammer Level: 11  Posts: 19/38 EXP: 5405 For next: 580 Since: 05-19-04 From: the UK Since last post: 189 days Last activity: 194 days |
| ||
| you think that is bad, while i saved up for this crap pc im on now, becuase i blew up my gaming rig, i had to make do with a 75mz system with 28.8kb modem and windows 95. 8 minutes to load windows, thats a crap pc, but is strangely stable. | |||
|
Elric Chasupa Currently Playing: You Like A Lute. Level: 40 Posts: 231/687 EXP: 440016 For next: 1293 Since: 03-15-04 From: Melniboné Since last post: 6 hours Last activity: 6 hours |
| ||
| Wow. That does suck. OK, there's no forum with over 999 threads. The one with the most was Super Mario World Hacking, with 390 threads. I'm currently conencted at 46.6kpbs. With a threads per page of 999, SMWHacking rendered in 22.175 seconds. And since I never visit that forum, EVERY thread was listed as NEW or OFF. Less than 30 seconds is nothing. |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - Suggestions/Bug Reports - Idea! *ding* |
| | |
