-
Hey MB, Midnite,
The logo shifting from negative to positive image is an interesting effect, but it's not worth the extra 10-15 seconds per topic that it takes to load. It's really killing my ability to go through topics at a reasonable pace. Is it just me?
Anyway, I vote to go back to one that allows faster browsing. This is waaaaay too much of a time sink.
--Mark
-
Hi Mark,
MB is online so this is just a quick note. Netscapers, no need to scratch your head, cuz you can't see the feature and therefore won't experience the slowing.
-
I agree. The latest logo is very eyecatching, but IMHO, it isn't worth the delay while waiting for it to load. Is there a way that it could be confined to the forum's start page? Then people could still see it, but it wouldn't interfere with reading topics on the various boards.
ProfStokes
-
The logo shifting from negative to positive image is an interesting effect, but it's not worth the extra 10-15 seconds per topic that it takes to load. It's really killing my ability to go through topics at a reasonable pace. Is it just me?
The logo's transition takes 18 seconds to complete, but posts are loading for me before the transition completes. How odd that they're not for you. :-/
Why don't you take a few days to see if this changes, Mark. If not, going back to the original logo is no biggie because the truth is I was simply testing out two IE filters I just came across. (The background color's gradient going from black at the the top of a page to dark gray at the bottom is the other.)
An observation before I close (and, honestly, this truly isn't directed at you, Mark - just in general, because this is something that seems to permeate our entire society): Just when did our continually escalating demand to have everything faster and quicker progress to the point that having to wait an extra 18 seconds became intolerable? Does this foreshadow a time in the not too distant future when having to wait, say, 8 seconds will be similarly intolerable? If so, what will society be like 50, or even 10 years from now? Personally, I shudder to think...
Signed,
The Philosopher (which is how an IQ/Personality test I took back in high school referred to me [lghy]).
-
Hey MB, Midnite,
The logo shifting from negative to positive image is an interesting effect, but it's not worth the extra 10-15 seconds per topic that it takes to load. It's really killing my ability to go through topics at a reasonable pace. Is it just me?
Anyway, I vote to go back to one that allows faster browsing. This is waaaaay too much of a time sink.
--Mark
No, it is not only you Mark. I am also having a hard time here and it seems to take forever for me to switch between topics. I thought it was just me until I read the comments here. With all the Bandwidch that has been saved lately, I would think this wouldn't be a problem, but apparently it is. Is there anything that can be done about this? MB?
-
Is there a way that it could be confined to the forum's start page? Then people could still see it, but it wouldn't interfere with reading topics on the various boards.
ProfStokes
Great idea Prof. Stokes!!
-
With all the Bandwidch that has been saved lately, I would think this wouldn't be a problem, but apparently it is.
Actually, the logo's transition is handled internally by each person's computer's memory, so the forum's bandwidth isn't at issue here. (If it had been, I wouldn't have tried it in the first place. ;)) But as I said, this is something that can easily disappear.
Hmmm - I just realized why the transition may work differently for me than it does for some others: Last fall I upgraded my motherboard and installed 256MB of fast DDR SDRAM memory (and an AMD 1.2GHz processor). (This might also be why I was having fewer problems in the chatroom the last Sunday...) I'm so used to my computer working so quickly (yes, even *I'm* addicted to speed [wink2]) that I tend to forget how much slower it worked before the upgrade (with only 96MB of much slower EDO memory (and a 475MHz processor)). [embb]
-
Well don't that just beat all, MB......and here I was about to tell you that I REALLY liked the new logo....which would make it the FIRST logo 'improvement' of yours that I actually DID like!
Even when I'm NOT trying to be contrary!........
Oh....and you're absolutely right about the ever-increasing impatience of the human race. One of those get-out-of-my-way-I'm-in-a-hurry types came within an inch of killing me and my mother-in-law on the Long Island Expressway yesterday afternoon. No, my whole life didn't flash before my eyes....just my daughter's face.
Raineypark
-
Just when did our continually escalating demand to have everything faster and quicker progress to the point that having to wait an extra 18 seconds became intolerable? Does this foreshadow a time in the not too distant future when having to wait, say, 8 seconds will be similarly intolerable? If so, what will society be like 50, or even 10 years from now? Personally, I shudder to think...
MB -- 18 seconds once isn't bad; but the cumulative effect when you start changing topics does get outright time-consuming. For example, I had a message waiting for me when I logged in earlier; in the time it took for the logo to load, I ordinarily would have already accessed the message, finished reading it, and probably been working on a reply. No joke. I don't care if it's ten seconds or three minutes, I prefer to be productive in that span rather than twiddling my thumbs waiting on a graphic I've already seen over and over again. The end effect is that it adds nothing positive to the experience of being on the board.
It's not simply a matter of wanting something now, it's more the relative benefit of cost versus product. In this case, the cost is increased time, and the product is eye-candy that, after having been experienced once, is superfluous.
[shadow=black,left,300]--Mark[/shadow]
-
Thank-you, Mark. I second your comments about the cumulative time taken to load the logo. The board is running slow and a little jerky for me, too.
-
For example, I had a message waiting for me when I logged in earlier; in the time it took for the logo to load, I ordinarily would have already accessed the message, finished reading it, and probably been working on a reply. No joke.
I don't doubt it for a second. ;)
I don't care if it's ten seconds or three minutes, I prefer to be productive in that span rather than twiddling my thumbs waiting on a graphic I've already seen over and over again. The end effect is that it adds nothing positive to the experience of being on the board.
So for you it's an issue of productivity over aesthetics. A choice I can more than respect - though, thankfully, in this particular instance, it's not a choice I really have to make because the transition isn't slowing down the forum for me. But, of course, my computer's performance isn't the only one at play. And it would be selfish of me not to consider the transition's impact on others use of the forum - particularly when its addition was nothing more than a whim.
it's more the relative benefit of cost versus product. In this case, the cost is increased time, and the product is eye-candy that, after having been experienced once, is superfluous.
Again, I do honestly respect your opinion, but it's one I'm afraid I can't share because, I suppose, I don't consider aesthetics superfluous.
But the whole point of this disagreement is moot anyway because, as I've already said, the transition can easily disappear because the filter is something I was merely testing out. I never really intended it to be a permanent fixture on the forum. And its continued use is hardly something I'd be willing to argue for. I'd much prefer to pick my battles for something I honestly believe improves the forum. :)
-
I've been testing from my end and I haven't had any problems with the disappearing/appearing logo.
While it's doing its thing, I've been purposely going in/out of messages, home, rules, cousins, etc., just to see if I'm slowed down. Can't say that I've seen much of a difference.
Just thought I'd let you know, MB/Midnight.
-
I've been testing it today also and it seems to be slow sometimes and others not. Checking mail is ok and appears not to be any different. I can say that posting responses has been very slow. Just typing this out right now took more time than ususal.
Teresa
The logo does look kind of cool when it opens
-
What am I missing, or has it already been changed? I don't remember anything from last night (early this morning), either. What I get now is a moment of total black followed by the logo appearning, and shortly afterwards, the rest of the page.
However, I started noticing last night (early this morning) and again now, that with every page that comes up, down at the bottom of the screen is a little yellow symbol and the words "Error on Page" which shortly afterwards changes to the same (I think) logo and "Welcome to the Forum!" and the page appears. Last night I did have to wait a bit for error to change to welcome, and the first couple of times I did think there was a problem, but then the page appeared.
Meanwhile, as to your "time" comments - I generally have about 2 hours worth of things to look up on the Internet every day. Most days I only sign on late at night and try to get caught up on everything. Catching up on all the new items here is one of the main items to be done. I'd rather have 100 new posts in 10 topics than 50 new posts in 20 topics, as, once in a topic it's easy to slide down and quickly read everything. The fewer pages to load, the better.
It's not a matter of being impatient for a few seconds here and there. Just that I'm trying to get everything done along with everything else I have to do, and anytime there's a slow down, for whatever reason, just sitting and waiting for each page is extremely aggravating.
And, if it comes on a night when I'm particularly late, or have a lot of other "important" things to do which I'm putting off until finishing this, then it's especially bad.
-
Frankly, I think it's high time we get together and vote to greatly reduce MB's salary in regards to this website. I mean looks at the things that are still yet to be ironed out - the kinks and the little problems, and some download delays. This board is what gets us through life every day and I don't care much about anything else MB might have to do like work or have an outside life beyond this forum. I find it shocking.
I'm ready to vote for "reduce" the bucks we are funnelling along to the MB for all this work. ::)
Shame shame shame, everyone knows your name.
Nancy ;D
-
You mean MB DOES work and have an outside life besides this forum?!! Given all the work he puts into this, I can't imagine how he can do anthing else!! :)
-
What am I missing, or has it already been changed? I don't remember anything from last night (early this morning), either. What I get now is a moment of total black followed by the logo appearring, and shortly afterwards, the rest of the page.
No, it hasn't been changed. And what you should be seeing is the logo transitioning from this version:
(http://www.dsboards.com/images/logo6.jpg)
To this:(http://www.dsboards.com/images/logo3.jpg)
It's been doing that since 2:14am et/11:14pm pt this morning/last night. ;)
However, I started noticing last night (early this morning) and again now, that with every page that comes up, down at the bottom of the screen is a little yellow symbol and the words "Error on Page" which shortly afterwards changes to the same (I think) logo and "Welcome to the Forum!" and the page appears.
The logo should only be appearing at the top of each page. And I have no idea why you should be seeing something that says, "Error on Page" because you're using IE 5.01, and support for the transition and gradient filters the forum is currently using began at Microsoft with IE 4.
Do you receive error messages when you open posts that use the forum's glow and shadow features? The transition and gradient filters are exactly the same sort of filters.
You can check out this page at the MSDN site for further details:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/filter/filters.asp
;)
-
FWIW, I'm getting errors from IE (version 5) but I can deal or go to Netscape, although my PC has a problem with Netscape :(
Luciaphil
-
Me neither, Josette. :D
You mean MB DOES work and have an outside life besides this forum?!! Given all the work he puts into this, I can't imagine how he can do anthing else!! :)
-
MB -- 18 seconds once isn't bad; but the cumulative effect when you start changing topics does get outright time-consuming.
Yes - I agree. I'm relieved to see this brought up. (Didn't want to say anything. Was just hoping the logo thing would go away or something.) LOL
It's not only that. The pages won't scroll right for me anymore. Everything jerks around all over the place. Wasn't sure if it was just me or not.
Anyway, I find myself looking at fewer pages 'cause it just takes too long.
-CLC 8)
NEVER EVER one to complain.
-
It's not only that. The pages won't scroll right for me anymore. Everything jerks around all over the place. Wasn't sure if it was just me or not.
Im going throgh the same thing here. When I scroll down to read the posts, it's like the page starts jerking and then starts moving in slow motion. I honestly thought there was something wrong with my computer until I started reading the topics here. I've even been having trouble with copying & pasting lately. The logo does look great MB but is there another way that it still can be shown and have the topics thread moving back to the way it use to be.? I thought Prof.Stokes had a good idea about this.
-
I get the first (light) version of the logo and it doesn't change. Maybe that's why I haven't had any speed problems!
The "error" that I'm talking about is at the bottom. Right above the "Start" with the Windows logo in the corner of the screen. There is a gray bar right above that and below the messages. There is a little yellow logo (I think it's an exclamation point in it). Right next to that it says "Welcome to the Forum!" But, (maybe it always did it and I never noticed before), when the page is loading, it says "Error on Page" and then switches to the Welcome and the page appears.
---
After posting this originally, it suddenly occurred to me that maybe the "error" is the fact that my logo isn't changing. Since all is working well for me, that's fine!!
-
[bnghd]
MB...we love and appreciate allllllll that you do,
but right now, my cursor is bopping in & out the shadows!!
Like the look, but NOT the effect on the board.
Patti
-
I like the new logo! To me, it's like the few seconds it takes to watch the opening credits of Dark Shadows. Even though I can fast-forward through those rolling words over the wave-crashing-beach, I never do. Anyway, if I need things to speed up 'cause I'm in more of a hurry, I just open the message board through Netscape, where the effect doesn't happen, and Netscape doesn't freeze or take forever to open like AOHell (but then, on my older version of Netscape, I can't post, so I hafta come back to AOHell to do that). Also, when I download MB's wonderful collages, I use Netscape because there it downloads as a jpeg; on AOHell, it does it as an "art-something-or-other".
Gerard
-
I mean looks at the things that are still yet to be ironed out - the kinks and the little problems, and some download delays.
Yes, well, if I wasn't spending a portion of my time trying to come up with and install bandwidth saving measures, and then trying to persuade people to actually use them, perhaps little things like that would get fixed sooner rather than later. ;)
Hmmm - now wouldn't it be so interesting if I did decide to post the names of the people who've taken it upon themselves to forego their share of the responsibility for saving bandwidth so that those people who are actually doing their part could see exactly who seems to think they're above their fellow posters. [vryevl]
-
I've been trying to keep mine collapsed. Could that be why I seem to have no problems with slowness?
-
Seriously, those of you who are experiencing page jiggles and cursor twitching should really contact Microsoft support because something about your IE setups is very wrong. I've opened the forum using IE 4, 5, 5.5 & 6 and haven't experienced any of that. Perhaps you might need to upgrade or reinstall DirectX (DirectX 8.1 is currently available from Windows Update - though all the filters and transitions should work seemlessly even if you only have DirectX 5). Or perhaps you might need to upgrade or reinstall Direct Animation or Internet Explorer Classes for Java.
One thing to try would be to go to this page on the MSDN site:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/filter/filters.asp
to check out the filter and transition examples Microsoft has provided there. The code for the logo's transition came directly from that site.
-
Possibly stupid question, could it be that I don't have Flash or something like that installed?
Luciaphil
-
Heh heh, that would be a hoot. :-X
Nancy
Yes, well, if I wasn't spending a portion of my time trying to come up with and install bandwidth saving measures, and then trying to persuade people to actually use them, perhaps little things like that would get fixed sooner rather than later. ;)
Hmmm - now wouldn't it be so interesting if I did decide to post the names of the people who've taken it upon themselves to forego their share of the responsibility for saving bandwidth so that those people who are actually doing their part could see exactly who seems to think they're above their fellow posters. [vryevl]
-
I may be one of the only ones, but everything is going well for me. I really like the new logo at the top. It doesn't seem to slow anything down for me.
-Lindsey
BTW, my sister tried joining the board the other day, but it says it is not accepting new members. She wanted me to ask you if you knew when you were going to accept new members. Thanks!
(She thinks she is going to call herself Julia_Julia_Julia. That is how much she loves Julia! ::) )
-
Hmmm - now wouldn't it be so interesting if I did decide to post the names of the people who've taken it upon themselves to forego their share of the responsibility for saving bandwidth so that those people who are actually doing their part could see exactly who seems to think they're above their fellow posters. [vryevl]
Well, you have me looking over my shoulder! I THINK that I have done what you suggest, but honestly, I'm not sure. My guess is that instead of thinking they are high and mighty, they just didn't understand your requests! Maybe some IMs to the people would help to straighten them out?
And I'm REALLY hoping that I won't get one.... [nerv] [heh]
-
Count me among the clueless too i can save lives but computers well...
also how do i know what IE i have?
jennifer(i am teachable though!)
-
I've been trying to keep mine collapsed. Could that be why I seem to have no problems with slowness?
Collapsing categories on the BoardIndex would certainly speed up the download of that page. ;)
-
Possibly stupid question, could it be that I don't have Flash or something like that installed?
Not a stupid question at all :) - but, the answer is no. Flash is supported on the forum, though, and any sort of Flash animation can be displayed in a post.
-
BTW, my sister tried joining the board the other day, but it says it is not accepting new members. She wanted me to ask you if you knew when you were going to accept new members.
I wish I could say soon, but we really have no idea right now. It might not be until we move to a new host when our contract with our current host expires near the end of January...
Sorry. :(
-
My guess is that instead of thinking they are high and mighty, they just didn't understand your requests!
I could believe that if it was simply that they didn't collapse any of the categories. But I find it very hard to believe that going into their profiles and removing the checkmarks after having read my post explaining what they were and why they were there was anything but a premeditated act. >:(
Maybe some IMs to the people would help to straighten them out?
And I'm REALLY hoping that I won't get one.... [nerv] [heh]
You don't have to worry. You've had all but the General Discussions category collapsed (which is above and beyond what I'd asked [thumb]), and you've had all three of the boxes in your profile checked all along. You, my friend, are an exemplary "cousin"! [lghy]
-
Count me among the clueless too i can save lives but computers well...
also how do i know what IE i have?
I just checked the forum's log, and you're using IE 5.0. But to answer your question - the next time you have IE up and running, click on "Help" in the drop-down menu bar (the top row), then click on "About Internet Explorer" at the bottom of the menu that comes down. The window that comes up will give you the entire version number of your particular copy of IE, but the really important numbers are the ones before and after the first decimal point. For example, it might say something like:
Version: 5.50.4807.2300IS
which would mean that you have IE 5.5. ;)
-
Jennifer wrote:
Count me among the clueless too
You can count me amongst them also!
MB, I sorry to be such a pain here but when it comes to certain computer terms, I really am shamefully illiterate. After going over again what you had written about bandwidth savings measures, I finally had my daughter's boyfriend, who is good with computers sit down with me and explain what exactly I am suppose to do, (yes, I know you expained it all in the bandwidth saving topic but Im pretty thick when it comes to these things) Anyway, I've collapsed some of the catagories that you mentioned and now the board seems to working better for me! I hope Im doing everything right now because I really want to help save bandwidth along with everyone else here.
As for downloading some of the things you mentioned in one of the topics here Im afraid that's going to take some time because my head is still spinning just from learning how to "collapse catagories" Anyway if I was one of the ones who didn't do something right, Im really sorry, it just takes me some time to comprehend these things. Wish they had computers when I was growing up in school!
-
Or perhaps you might need to upgrade or reinstall Direct Animation or Internet Explorer Classes for Java.
How does someone go about reinstalling these? I don't even know what Internet Explorer Classes for Java is. I'm ALMOST as lost as Cassandra is...not quite. LOL
(Sorry Cassandra) :-X
Actually, I really don't know what bandwidth is -- I just know I'm trying to save it. I collapsed the categories the day I read the bandwidth savings post but don't know if I'm able to collapse them further. I left the 3 things in the profile checked, and try to keep my posts under 5 a day, but don't know if that makes any difference or not. [hdscrt]
Anyway, thanks MB for changing the logo thing. Nothing's jerking around anymore and the scrolling is smooth again! AH!!!
The only problem NOW is......
When the page changes,
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
I keep slipping off my chair...
<-------- THIS WAY!
(No...sorry...sorry) SHUT MY MOUTH! :-X :-X :-X
With fondest joy,
Connie
[nuts]
-
How does someone go about reinstalling these? I don't even know what Internet Explorer Classes for Java is. I'm ALMOST as lost as Cassandra is...not quite. LOL
(Sorry Cassandra) :-X
I looked at that site and was lost as well. I'd have to ask my computer nerd brother if it is something I should do or not.
The only problem NOW is......
When the page changes,
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
I keep slipping off my chair...
<-------- THIS WAY!
[nuts]
I thought something was wrong with my computer when I first saw it. Now I'm used to it, sort of. LOL
-
Actually, I really don't know what bandwidth is -- I just know I'm trying to save it. I collapsed the categories the day I read the bandwidth savings post but don't know if I'm able to collapse them further. I left the 3 things in the profile checked, and try to keep my posts under 5 a day, but don't know if that makes any difference or not. [hdscrt]
Your efforts and the efforts of other cousins to save bandwidth have been much appreciated. The ultimate goal in doing so is to keep the message board online for everyone to enjoy, but I gasped when I read that you try to keep your posts to under 5 a day. Connie, if you or anyone else has something to add to any discussion, please feel free to post it instead of denying the rest of us that valuable opportunity. I really mean it!
Okay, yes, there's a 10-post limit set into the system, which I feel is reasonable, but its intent has always been to prevent any one person from dominating the forum or a particular discussion and never to stifle anyone's creativity. What you see on your screen if you reach your limit is just a gentle and private reminder, and when the forum clock resets at midnite, er, midnight GMT you're immediately back in business!
I talked about fluffing a while back, and MB and I will eventually be coming up with a guideline that will address it (TIME??? We don't need no stinkin' time! ;)), but that's only because we feel we've been backed into a corner, and this is a separate issue from the posting limit and one that you as well as most posters shouldn't have to worry about. Fluffing is easy to spot, and any cousin guilty of the practice knows that they're doing it.
I guess I should define it again, especially since it's a term with multiple meanings outside of internet posting boards. Fluffing occurs when members attempt to inflate their post totals in order to gain a more prestigious title on the forums. We're not attempting to judge the content of messages; if a poster wants to merely post "LOL" or a smiley because that's how they want to express themselves at that time, then by all means they should do it. What makes a message problematic is its intent-- if the poster is clicking submit with the purpose of upping their own total, they're fluffing. This doesn't enhance the board, it does waste bandwidth as well as the time of everyone that reads these posts, and it ticks off the moderator.
I hope I didn't confuse anyone! And I didn't mean to come across like I'm lecturing, or that I'm only addressing one person. :D
The only problem NOW is......
When the page changes,
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
I keep slipping off my chair...
<-------- THIS WAY!
(No...sorry...sorry) SHUT MY MOUTH! :-X :-X :-X
With fondest joy,
Connie
[nuts]
LMAO! Connie, you slay me!!
-
WHEW! Thanks for the logo fix, MB! It's like the kind of relief you feel after Connie's been quiet for three days and then she posts some kind of a big honking episode of photos and captions and suddenly all is right with the world again.
The card-style sliding of the page is kinda neat and doesn't eat up time. Bravo. ;)
[shadow=navy,left,300]--Mark[/shadow]
-
MB and Midnitet
hanks for all the explanations and now that i have a wee bit more time on my hands(stress the wee)have
to take that computer course.what i know would leave room on the head of the pin!
jennifer
-
today i went on and everything was back like before
that i had collapsed !i just hit collapse again and all is collapsed Is this right?
jennifer
-
today i went on and everything was back like before
that i had collapsed !i just hit collapse again and all is collapsed Is this right?
Yes. Because the forum reverted to an earlier version from yesterday (see: "Where did everything go?....." on this board), everything became as it was then. So if you found the boards uncollapsed, it's because the point at which the boards went back to was a time when they weren't collapsed. All messages that were on the board at that time that had not yet been read by you will also have a blue tag in front of them. And all IMs sent and received during that window, or posts added, will not show up.
If the problem hadn't occurred, you would have found the boards just as you left them. Sorry for the inconvenience. Now I know how the Collinses felt every time someone mucked up the present by changing the past. ;)
-
Sorry, but the idea that anyone would actually be trying to do what you describe is scary and very disconcerting!
Nancy
I guess I should define it again, especially since it's a term with multiple meanings outside of internet posting boards. Fluffing occurs when members attempt to inflate their post totals in order to gain a more prestigious title on the forums. We're not attempting to judge the content of messages; if a poster wants to merely post "LOL" or a smiley because that's how they want to express themselves at that time, then by all means they should do it. What makes a message problematic is its intent-- if the poster is clicking submit with the purpose of upping their own total, they're fluffing. This doesn't enhance the board, it does waste bandwidth as well as the time of everyone that reads these posts, and it ticks off the moderator.
I hope I didn't confuse anyone! And I didn't mean to come across like I'm lecturing, or that I'm only addressing one person. :D
-
Another thing too MB is that I don't know how many people read the Testing board and where you make the requests. I rarely ever looked at those source because I didn't have any problems with the board and if he was down when I tried logging on, I knew it would be back up eventually. Until recently, as I said, I didn't read those posts even the ones above the Current Talk board but I started to recently realizing I was skipping important information such as the bandwith saving measures you wrote about. I wonder how many other people also have ignored the sections thinking it only applied to those who were having problems??
However, I realize that if that is the case, as it was with me, it's not at all a good idea to skip over those sections whether or not you have a technical issue on the board you want to discuss. I did just collapse all the sections since I started reading these testing boards and issues. I should not have skipped over those sections.
Nancy
Hmmm - now wouldn't it be so interesting if I did decide to post the names of the people who've taken it upon themselves to forego their share of the responsibility for saving bandwidth so that those people who are actually doing their part could see exactly who seems to think they're above their fellow posters. [vryevl]
-
Another thing too MB is that I don't know how many people read the Testing board and where you make the requests. I rarely ever looked at those.......Until recently, as I said, I didn't read those posts even the ones above the Current Talk board but I started to recently realizing I was skipping important information such as the bandwith saving measures you wrote about. I wonder how many other people also have ignored the sections thinking it only applied to those who were having problems??
I'm glad Nancy brought this up.
MB....I rarely read the Testing section either or the top flagged posts in Current Topics area. My eyes just have a tendency to glance over them - simply because I've maybe read something there in the past and don't realize there's a new issue or request. I bet many people do the same thing.
It sort of upsets me that you may be thinking the worst of people because they're not responding to your requests. I think there are probably quite a few who aren't aware of them. Not everyone reads EVERYTHING that's posted on this board. (I certainly don't - I don't have the time. It's a busy board and I can't keep up).
Also, not everyone understands everything they're reading. If they don't, they'll have a tendency to skip over it.
Example: Yesterday I asked my daughter if she'd collapsed her categories and she didn't know what in hell I was talking about. I had to explain everything.
Also, the issue of your thinking some members are spiteful and turned the smileys back on after you turned them off....think about it.
You have to realize that you know this board intimately, how everything works, what everyone is doing, etc.
WE, on the other side, see the board differently.
It's obvious to me, that someone has logged on, gone to type a post in, and seen that their smileys are missing. So they check in their profile and it's like, "hey - something weird happened" and they go and turn them back on -- NOT realizing you turned them off to save bandwidth 'cause they never read the message.!!
Most of the people on here aren't programmers, computer wiz's, etc. Some of us are in the dark in certain areas (and at times, a bit thick)(at least I am).
Please don't think badly of people because it "appears" that they've deliberately done something out of spite.
I think the overwhelming majority of board members are good people with no spiteful intentions at all.
Don't mean to sound like I'm lecturing or anything....
Just wanted to give you my take on what I think happens -- on the "other side of the screen" from you, so to speak, ya know?
-CLC :)
Who still isn't familiar with ALL the features of this board!
-
MB....I rarely read the Testing section either or the top flagged posts in Current Topics area. My eyes just have a tendency to glance over them - simply because I've maybe read something there in the past and don't realize there's a new issue or request. I bet many people do the same thing.
It sort of upsets me that you may be thinking the worst of people because they're not responding to your requests. I think there are probably quite a few who aren't aware of them. Not everyone reads EVERYTHING that's posted on this board. (I certainly don't - I don't have the time. It's a busy board and I can't keep up).
Also, not everyone understands everything they're reading. If they don't, they'll have a tendency to skip over it.
Example: Yesterday I asked my daughter if she'd collapsed her categories and she didn't know what in hell I was talking about. I had to explain everything.
Also, the issue of your thinking some members are spiteful and turned the smileys back on after you turned them off....think about it.
You have to realize that you know this board intimately, how everything works, what everyone is doing, etc.
WE, on the other side, see the board differently.
It's obvious to me, that someone has logged on, gone to type a post in, and seen that their smileys are missing. So they check in their profile and it's like, "hey - something weird happened" and they go and turn them back on -- NOT realizing you turned them off to save bandwidth 'cause they never read the message.!!
Most of the people on here aren't programmers, computer wiz's, etc. Some of us are in the dark in certain areas (and at times, a bit thick)(at least I am).
Please don't think badly of people because it "appears" that they've deliberately done something out of spite.
I think the overwhelming majority of board members are good people with no spiteful intentions at all.
Don't mean to sound like I'm lecturing or anything....
Just wanted to give you my take on what I think happens -- on the "other side of the screen" from you, so to speak, ya know?
Well, I don't mean to sound like I'm lecturing anyone either, but as a point of reference, I'd like to quote a paragraph from the forum's rules/guidelines, which I'm sure you and everyone else thoroughly read over when you registered as a member, right? ;)
"It is the responsibility of posters to this board to familiarize him- or herself with these guidelines before posting to these forums. It's up to you to periodically check to see if they have been added to and/or amended. It's also up to you to be sure to read and follow any instructions that might be posted to either the 'Testing. 1, 2, 3...' board and/or specially marked topics atop 'Current Talk'. Failure to read additions/amendments and/or special posts will not be considered an excuse should you violate a guideline or fail to comply with a request."
Periodically checking the rules/guidelines is a simple enough task as we've made sure that a link to them is in the menu at the top and bottom of most of the forum's pages. And any special posts made on either "Testing. 1, 2, 3..." or "Current Talk" are always specially marked to draw attention to them. [wink2]
Also, it's unfortunate that four posts I made in this topic last night are no longer here (due to our host's rebooting of the server) because you might not have come away with quite the same impression as you did without having read them...
-
Also, it's unfortunate that four posts I made in this topic last night are no longer here (due to our host's rebooting of the server) because you might not have come away with quite the same impression as you did without having read them...
Soooo...does this mean you're like, pissed at me or anything? (No - I didn't see the 4 posts you're referring to).
I just felt badly that in a couple of your earlier posts you were thinking people spiteful, when I just had the strong impression that probably the most they were guilty of was negligence at the worst.
I dunno...maybe I'm naive.
As far as the guidelines you posted above, I believe I read the guidelines when I first registered. But do I remember that specific paragraph? Can't say that I do. Guilty
When I come on here, I just sort of try to behave myself, and if I see a request by you or Midnite I try to follow it. (shrug)
-CLC 8) :-X 8)
-
Soooo...does this mean you're like, pissed at me or anything?
No. Not at all! :) In fact, in one of my missing posts I added to Midnite's sentiments by telling you that there was absolutely no reason to limit yourself to only five posts a day unless you didn't have more than five in you. [wink2] You've given me some of the best laughs I've had reading the forum - and you have no idea just how therapeutic that's been some days!
I just felt badly that in a couple of your earlier posts you were thinking people spiteful, when I just had the strong impression that probably the most they were guilty of was negligence at the worst.
I dunno...maybe I'm naive.
Naive? No. And truthfully, part of the impression you got is my own fault for making those comments publicly. But, you see, they were directed at people who, shall we say, have been less than cooperative with Midnite or myself in the past when privately we've politely made a request of them, so addressing them publicly was sort of a change of tack that we hoped might work. Sadly, so far anyway, it hasn't...
As far as the guidelines you posted above, I believe I read the guidelines when I first registered. But do I remember that specific paragraph? Can't say that I do.
Well, the majority of the wording (particularly the parts about it being people's responsibility to periodically check the quidelines for updates and amendments) has been there all along - but it was amended a few months back after a somewhat similar incident occurred. :(
When I come on here, I just sort of try to behave myself, and if I see a request by you or Midnite I try to follow it. (shrug)
And, believe me, in the overwhelming majority of cases, Midnite and I couldn't ask for a nicer or a more conscientious bunch of people to enjoy our love of DS with. What's unfortunate are the ones that seem to continually cause problems for no apparent reason other than they can. But at least Midnite and I have each other to vent to - and that's a hell of a lot more healthy, not to mention a lot safer than actually finding out where these people live and throwing them off a cliff, blowing them up, running them down, or any number of other fantasies we've joked with each other about doing. And one thing's for sure, behind the scenes of this forum is never dull. [lghy]
-
Connie, I'm almost sure I was one of those people who probably went in and thought previously checked boxes were unchecked because I screwed up. However, I should have been reading the testing board all along as it is the individual responsibility to keep up with changes. When I initially started reading everything when this new board went up, frankly I found some of the complaints on the testing board too finicky for me, especially in light of the fact the board was new and obviously there were many things to be worked out and would be in time. So, I stopped reading. However, I should not have done so obviously since I think I'm one of the people the MB was talking about, though I am simply not smart enough computer-wise to have been deliberate in not cooperating.;)
Scrolling through the board to keep up with what the MB or Midnite say on the testing boards etc. is the way to go. I spend most of my online time on two political forums but I want this forum to go well especially after so much time has been put into it, so I will take the time to read and comply with future requests etc. It's only fair to everyone else.
Nancy
I'm glad Nancy brought this up.
MB....I rarely read the Testing section either or the top flagged posts in Current Topics area. My eyes just have a tendency to glance over them - simply because I've maybe read something there in the past and don't realize there's a new issue or request. I bet many people do the same thing.
It sort of upsets me that you may be thinking the worst of people because they're not responding to your requests. I think there are probably quite a few who aren't aware of them. Not everyone reads EVERYTHING that's posted on this board. (I certainly don't - I don't have the time. It's a busy board and I can't keep up).
Also, not everyone understands everything they're reading. If they don't, they'll have a tendency to skip over it.
Example: Yesterday I asked my daughter if she'd collapsed her categories and she didn't know what in hell I was talking about. I had to explain everything.
Also, the issue of your thinking some members are spiteful and turned the smileys back on after you turned them off....think about it.
You have to realize that you know this board intimately, how everything works, what everyone is doing, etc.
WE, on the other side, see the board differently.
It's obvious to me, that someone has logged on, gone to type a post in, and seen that their smileys are missing. So they check in their profile and it's like, "hey - something weird happened" and they go and turn them back on -- NOT realizing you turned them off to save bandwidth 'cause they never read the message.!!
Most of the people on here aren't programmers, computer wiz's, etc. Some of us are in the dark in certain areas (and at times, a bit thick)(at least I am).
Please don't think badly of people because it "appears" that they've deliberately done something out of spite.
I think the overwhelming majority of board members are good people with no spiteful intentions at all.
Don't mean to sound like I'm lecturing or anything....
Just wanted to give you my take on what I think happens -- on the "other side of the screen" from you, so to speak, ya know?
-CLC :)
Who still isn't familiar with ALL the features of this board!
-
MB,
Seriously though - why don't you and Midnite boot these people you describe? There is no reason in the world for something to continue if you have privately made requests about how you want things on your board.
There are apparently many other people who would like to be on this board and can't get in now because of registration limitations. Booting people who "deliberate" in the ways you and Midnite have described would not be at all unreasonable.
Just a thought. I know I would.
Nancy
Naive? No. And truthfully, part of the impression you got is my own fault for making those comments publicly. But, you see, they were directed at people who, shall we say, have been less than cooperative with Midnite or myself in the past when privately we've politely made a request of them, so addressing them publicly was sort of a change of tack that we hoped might work. Sadly, so far anyway, it hasn't...
Well, the majority of the wording (particularly the parts about it being people's responsibility to periodically check the quidelines for updates and amendments) has been there all along - but it was amended a few months back after a somewhat similar incident occurred. :(
And, believe me, in the overwhelming majority of cases, Midnite and I couldn't ask for a nicer or a more conscientious bunch of people to enjoy our love of DS with. What's unfortunate are the ones that seem to continually cause problems for no apparent reason other than they can. But at least Midnite and I have each other to vent to - and that's a hell of a lot more healthy, not to mention a lot safer than actually finding out where these people live and throwing them off a cliff, blowing them up, running them down, or any number of other fantasies we've joked with each other about doing. And one thing's for sure, behind the scenes of this forum is never dull. [lghy]
-
Seriously though - why don't you and Midnite boot these people you describe? There is no reason in the world for something to continue if you have privately made requests about how you want things on your board.
Well, truthfully, persistent troublemakers do teeter on the edge, but as MB pointed out, these are persons that hear from us a lot already. Yet kicking somebody off is an extreme measure (particularly since right now there's no way to get back on) and reserved for the most disruptive visitors, i.e. the trolls, whom we will not hesitate to deal with swiftly. I don't know if this is surprising to anybody or not, but our ban list is very short.
We've found that other methods can be just as effective. For example, most people don't like to be singled out publicly despite the fact that they may have continually ignored the same requests when asked anonymously or even privately, and members can and have been muted (prevented from posting) for a period of time. Also, nobody likes to have their posts removed. And while there's no guideline yet on fluffing, I suspect that once it's in place it might impact the persons the most that continue the practice if they lost their posting status, don't you think? The total they worked so hard to inflate can be easily deflated with the click of a mouse. ;)
There are apparently many other people who would like to be on this board and can't get in now because of registration limitations. Booting people who "deliberate" in the ways you and Midnite have described would not be at all unreasonable.
It's true that there are a lot of people anxious to join, but the ones causing problems are a tiny minority of our membership, so we're not able to think in terms of replacing one cousin with another.
The only way we're going to get the registration process open again is to reduce bandwidth, so this is why we're being sticklers about it. Reducing bandwidth will allow us to open the forum to new members and more importantly to stop the server from shutting us down periodically, which denies access to the members we already have.
Just a thought. I know I would.
I understand, Nancy, and I appreciate your feedback. I've looked at other message boards and at the different moderating styles and it's been eye opening, to say the least. Anyone that thinks we're pushy should meet "Iron Bastard" on another forum (or maybe not.... brrrr!). But anyway, though my patience is hardly limitless, I do believe in second chances.
-
Midnite, my quotation gizmo was not working so I cut and paste parts of your message:
quote:[[We've found that other methods can be just as effective. For example, most people don't like to be singled out publicly despite the fact that they may have continually ignored the same requests when asked anonymously or even privately, and members can and have been muted (prevented from posting) for a period of time. ]]]]
Ah, that's a good measure to have in place.
quote:[[ Also, nobody likes to have their posts removed. And while there's no guideline yet on fluffing, I suspect that once it's in place it might impact the persons the most that continue the practice if they lost their posting status, don't you think? The total they worked so hard to inflate can be easily deflated with the click of a mouse. ]]
Frankly, anyone who cares about getting a certain number of posts to their credit isn't someone who thinks too much about the comfort or concerns of other people. Sorry but that practice strikes me as bizarre and I can't imagine why anyone would want to do it. I mean, it's not as if you will get Green Stamps, a free banquet table and no waiting at the Festival, and a chance to tie up and push Roger Davis in a vat of taffy. But you and MB know what has worked best in terms of keeping people in line when they cross the line. I think it's awful that either one of you gets any grief considering all the time you put into this forum which is for, I might add, recreation and enjoyment.
quote:[[The only way we're going to get the registration process open again is to reduce bandwidth, so this is why we're being sticklers about it. Reducing bandwidth will allow us to open the forum to new members and more importantly to stop the server from shutting us down periodically, which denies access to the members we already have. }}
I see. I will keep up with the news on that score in the future.
Quote: I understand, Nancy, and I appreciate your feedback. I've looked at other message boards and at the different moderating styles and it's been eye opening, to say the least. Anyone that thinks we're pushy should meet "Iron Bastard" on another forum (or maybe not.... brrrr!). But anyway, though my patience is hardly limitless, I do believe in second chances. ]]
As do I but the impression I have gotten from reading comments here, you've given more than two chances. However, obviously, you know your limits. You are a very patient person. I'm not renowned for my patience or tolerance when it comes to folks who deliberately try to create a problem so I admire people who are a little more patient and understanding about it. That particular neuron I was not blessed with at birth. ;)
Nancy
-
frankly I found some of the complaints on the testing board too finicky for me, especially in light of the fact the board was new and obviously there were many things to be worked out and would be in time.
No one actually has to read all the posts here to keep up with special requests. Whenever Midnite or I post a special topic, we're always sure to draw attention to it by either including asterisks in the title, moving it to the top of a board, highlighting it with a flag or a star burst, or some combination of all of the above. It's true that there's often a lot of useful information posted here concerning forum upgrades or posting features. But sometimes they're made in response to a question or a request, so those things could be harder to spot right off the bat. However, that sort of stuff doesn't really have much to do with the current discussion, which has more to do with people who've read the topics we've started but have chosen to do something contrary to what either Midnite or I have requested.
As I mentioned in the "Reporting Problems" topic at the top of this board, the forum's system compiles a lot of information. So, if need be, it's very easy for us to check who has opened a topic that we've started as well as how many times they've opened it. And it's very hard for someone to argue that they didn't open a topic when we know they, in fact, have - and exactly when they did so. And it's also very hard for them to argue that they didn't at least read the first post that we started the topic with. ;)
-
Rewritten reply #1:
WHEW! Thanks for the logo fix, MB!
You're welcomed. :)
It's like the kind of relief you feel after Connie's been quiet for three days and then she posts some kind of a big honking episode of photos and captions and suddenly all is right with the world again.
LOL.
The card-style sliding of the page is kinda neat
Midnite and I thought so too. ;)
-
Sort of rewritten reply #2:
i just hit collapse again and all is collapsed Is this right?
Yes, you've done it perfectly (again). [thumb]
-
Sort of rewritten reply #3:
(Josette had asked if the updates notice comes up in only the later versions of Windows because she's still using Win95 and has ever had it come up for her.)
Yes, the Windows Update window only comes up for people using Win98 or later. Anyone still using Win95 should go to this page on Microsoft's site:
Microsoft Download Center (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/search.asp)
select "Windows 95" from both the "Product Name" and "Operating System" menus, and "All Downloads" from the "Show Results for" menu. Then click on "Find It". What will then come up are the first 25 of 74 downloads available for Win95 users. And you might think about going there soon because Microsoft has already discontinued support for Win95, so it might be anyone's guess just how long the downloads that were specifically designed for Win95 will be available. :(
-
And now back to new a new post. ;)
When I was browsing Microsoft's site for Josette, I came across a link to this page in the Microsoft Knowledge Base that might resolve the error some people were getting when the transition logo was still in place:
Script Error Viewing a Web Site That Uses Transition Filters (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q223331)
I've also discovered that certain filters and transitions will work in IE4 and later, while others only work in IE 5.5 and later. Some of the new features that I plan to install on the forum will include a few of the ones that require IE 5.5, so if people using a version of IE earlier than that might want to consider upgrading to at least 5.5 if they want to take advantage of the new features. If you don't already have a link to the Windows Update home page in the top section of your "Start" menu, this can be done quite easily by going here:
http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/
and clicking on "Product Updates" on the left hand side of the page. ;)
-
Anyone that thinks we're pushy should meet "Iron Bastard" on another forum (or maybe not.... brrrr!).
And to meet Iron Bastard, in his own words, they should check out this topic:
When is it time to ban a user? (http://www.yabbforum.com/community/?board=mods_admins;action=display;num=1019769434;start=)
on one of the boards on YaBB's home site. Perhaps you'll thank your lucky stars that we don't ban people for some of the reasons a few of these moderators suggest. [lghy] But one thing both Midnite and I do envy are Iron Bastard's "virtual army of administrators and moderator grunts". [wink2]
-
I see that you reconstructed your reply to me about the Win 95 issue, however, I had asked some questions in response to that. Here is a summary of what I'm trying to find out:
1 - I assumed that I'm lacking something that enables me to see these effects, since I never got that first changing logo, and now I have no idea what everyone is talking about with this sliding or tilting or whatever.
2 - If that's all I'm missing, I don't know if it's worth getting the update. All is working fine for now, just that I don't get the fancy effect. Is there any other particular reason why I would need an update?
3 - Any idea of the size of the download? I've been holding off getting a new computer for a while now. The main reason to need one is lack of hard disk space. I managed to clear a bit of room the other day, but I'm still avoiding any unnecessary downloads.
-
And while there's no guideline yet on fluffing, I suspect that once it's in place it might impact the persons the most that continue the practice if they lost their posting status, don't you think? The total they worked so hard to inflate can be easily deflated with the click of a mouse. ;)
Heehee. I think that would be very effective--frankly, the fluffing annoys me (and I'm not even a moderator :) ). I've seen it happen on other boards and it's just so pathetic. Someone has nothing else in their life to do but worry about their rank on a virtual BB???
Topic. I've got everything but three boards collapsed. My boxes are checked in my profile. Can't update to IE 5.5 online because my computer has decided I don't have plug-ins initialized (whatever that means), but I am getting a disc to update that way. I have seen the board slides on another PC though and it does look quite cool.
Anything else I can do to keep the bandwidth down?
Luciaphil
-
As I mentioned in the "Reporting Problems" topic at the top of this board, the forum's system compiles a lot of information. So, if need be, it's very easy for us to check who has opened a topic that we've started as well as how many times they've opened it. And it's very hard for someone to argue that they didn't open a topic when we know they, in fact, have - and exactly when they did so. And it's also very hard for them to argue that they didn't at least read the first post that we started the topic with. ;)
That's good to know that you do have that kind of tracking power on the board in case of a flare-up over someone doing things they ought not to do when, in fact, they know better. It certainly puts the ball (or cursor) in your court. And if it's foolproof, how can anyone argue?
Of course, the issue also comes down to what kind of person spends a lot of time doing things contrary to what you have asked - in a deliberate fashion as opposed to just being ditzy. And the kind of person you and Midnite have described is pretty scary.
Thanks for explaining.
Nancy
-
Well said, Luciaphil. You articulated my own thoughts on that subject very well.
Nancy
Heehee. I think that would be very effective--frankly, the fluffing annoys me (and I'm not even a moderator :) ). I've seen it happen on other boards and it's just so pathetic. Someone has nothing else in their life to do but worry about their rank on a virtual BB???
Luciaphil
-
Honestly, I don't mean to come across as if I'm coming down on anyone, but I've received a few comments from people who felt that the passage I quoted from the forum's guidelines seemed a bit harsh to them. Thruthfully, though, the wording Midnite and I ultimately decided on for that particular passage (as well as our entire agreement) is actually fairly standard Internet language and was drafted only after reviewing the user agreements on many different Web sites and through consultation with a lawyer.
Here are just some examples of similar passages in other Web sites' user agreements (some of which seem to go further than our own :():
LookSmart:
"These terms and conditions of use may be changed in the future without further notice. Your continued use of this Site after any such changes constitutes your acceptance of the new terms."
Compuserve:
"CompuServe may, in its sole discretion and at any time, modify or discontinue CompuServe.com; limit, terminate or suspend your use of or access to CompuServe.com; and/or make changes to these Terms of Use or any other policies posted on CompuServe.com."
MSN:
"Microsoft reserves the right to change the terms, conditions, and notices under which the MSN Sites/Services are offered, including but not limited to the charges associated with the use of the MSN Sites/Services. You are responsible for regularly reviewing these terms and conditions and additional terms posted on particular websites. Your continued use of the MSN Sites/Services constitutes your agreement to all such terms, conditions, and notices."
AOL:
"By using this site, you signify your agreement to all terms, conditions, and notices contained or referenced herein (the "Terms of Use"). If you do not agree to these Terms of Use please do not use this site. We reserve the right, at our discretion, to update or revise these Terms of Use. Please check the Terms periodically for changes. Your continued use of this site following the posting of any changes to the Terms of Use constitutes acceptance of those changes."
Google:
"We reserve the right to modify these Terms of Service from time to time without notice. Please review these Terms of Service from time to time so that you will be apprised of any changes."
Ziff Davis (Publisher of magazines/periodicals like Computer Gaming World, Electronic Gaming Monthly, eWEEK, ExtremeTech, GameNOW, Microsoft Watch, Official US PlayStation Magazine, PC Magazine, Yahoo! Internet Life and PC Magazine):
"ZDH reserves the right, in its discretion, to change or modify all or any part of this Agreement at any time. Your continued use of the Service constitutes your binding acceptance of these terms and conditions, including any changes or modifications made by ZDH. If at any time the terms and conditions of this Agreement are no longer acceptable to you, you should immediately cease all use of the Service."
Lycos:
"Use is subject to compliance with these Terms and Conditions. You acknowledge and agree that Lycos may terminate your access to the Lycos Network or to any of the Products and Services should you fail to comply with the Terms and Conditions or any other guidelines and rules published by Lycos. Any such termination shall be in Lycos' sole discretion and may occur without prior notice, or any notice. The Lycos Network reserves the right to modify these Terms and Conditions from time to time, without notice. Please review these Terms and Conditions from time to time so you will be apprised of any changes."
-
Well....THAT was enough to cross one's eyes!
What troopers you and Midnite are to slog through pages of that stuff just to create fair guidlines for us! I'm sure we're all VERY grateful we got YOU, and not the "Iron Bastard"....[winkb]
RP
-
1 - I assumed that I'm lacking something that enables me to see these effects, since I never got that first changing logo, and now I have no idea what everyone is talking about with this sliding or tilting or whatever.
Let's put it this way: Microsoft's Web site gives conflicting information with regard to the transition I was using for the logo and the page transition that slips the current page to the left whenever someone clicks on a link to another one of the forum's pages (what a surprise, considering that on more than one occassion I've had to hunt up sites that have no connection whatsoever to Microsoft to discover ways to correct problems that Microsoft admits exist in their software but conveniently avoids including a fix for (like Windows' undocumented setup switches and such) - but I digress [winkg]). One section says it was compatible with IE4 (and later), whereas another section of the site says it was designed to work with IE5.5 but will work with IE4 only if someone has upgraded IE4 to use some of IE5.5's features, which in turn may cause IE4 to behave unstably. (Please someone explain to me why anyone, knowing it would cause IE4 to act unstably, would upgrade IE4 to use some of IE5.5's features instead of just going all the way and upgrading to all of IE5.5's features? :-/) So the most probable reason you couldn't see the logo or can't the current transition is because you've never installed the upgrades from Microsoft that are needed to see them.
2 - If that's all I'm missing, I don't know if it's worth getting the update. All is working fine for now, just that I don't get the fancy effect. Is there any other particular reason why I would need an update?
Currently that's all you're missing. But as I said (although I just realized it was probably in a post that's no longer on the forum) I'm going to be adding some new YaBBC style "toys" soon for all of us to play with in our posts. They may or may not cause problems for you if you don't upgrade to IE5.5. I suppose we'll see...
3 - Any idea of the size of the download? I've been holding off getting a new computer for a while now. The main reason to need one is lack of hard disk space. I managed to clear a bit of room the other day, but I'm still avoiding any unnecessary downloads.
I just checked Microsoft's site to see how much hard drive space it would require for you to upgrade to IE5.5 for Win95, and they say anywhere from 6 to 17MB, depending on the number of files on your sytem that need to be updated. From the way you've spoken, I suspect you'd probably need an amount of free space that's closer to the 17MB than it is to the 6MB. ;)
-
Can't update to IE 5.5 online because my computer has decided I don't have plug-ins initialized (whatever that means)
Hmmm - do you get this error from IE itself? If so, it could be that you have IE's ActiveX controls and plug-ins disabled. To see if that's the case, bring down IE's "Tools" menu, click on "Internet Options", and then click on the "Security" tab in the window that comes up. "Internet" should already be highlighted in what comes up next, so click on the "Custom Level" button to see what the ActiveX controls and plug-ins setting are. If they're disabled, then that's probably why you can't upgrade online.
Anything else I can do to keep the bandwidth down?
Not at the moment - but thanks for asking. :)
-
Thank you, MB! There for a while I was regularly getting down to 30 - 40 MB (not you!:)) on C (I have 4 GB divided into C and D) and had to keep deleting all the cache, recycle bin, etc. Then, after deleting the Trash files from my e-mail (hadn't considered that those stay there!) and emptying the IE cache (I mostly use Netscape and can delete those files from Windows Explorer, whereas IE apparently has to be done from within the program), I got up to over 100 MB.
The other day it occurred to me that I hadn't checked for a while and perhaps I was getting low again. I was amazed to discover 120 MB and then did all of those deletions again and got it up to 235 MB!!! So, I assume I can spare 17.:)
However, I was also considering upgrading to Netscape 7 and I don't know how much difference that would make. I do the downloads to a folder on D, so I guess it's just a matter of how much it puts back onto C when it installs.
-
More questions!! I just took a quick look at the download site and I'm not sure what I should get. I assumed from your reply that there was an update that would change 5.0 to 5.5, but I only see mentions of 5.5 - so do I need to get the full program?
If there is just an update, as you seemed to indicate, perhaps you could tell me what it's called!!
There is also SP1 and SP2 for 5.5. I know I've heard of various security patches that they've had to put out, so if I get 5.5, I assume I'll then have to also download the SPs.
If that's true and if I decide to do all of this (!), does SP2 contain SP1 or would I need both of them?
-
There is also SP1 and SP2 for 5.5. I know I've heard of various security patches that they've had to put out, so if I get 5.5, I assume I'll then have to also download the SPs.
If that's true and if I decide to do all of this (!), does SP2 contain SP1 or would I need both of them?
All you'll need to download, Josette, is SP2 because it contains all the bug/security fixes and updates. ;)
-
Thank you, but I'm still confused! Do I have to upgrade to 5.5 first and then do SP2 or does the download of SP2 accomplish the whole thing?
-
does the download of SP2 accomplish the whole thing?
Yes, it does. :)
-
It's downloading now - I'll let you know later how it works!! :)
-
Reporting in - I've got the old screen scrolling off as the new one comes in, now! I haven't decided what I think of it, but at least I know what everyone's talking about!!
I expected it to work in reverse. After clicking the "back" button, I needed to go "forward" and I expected it to scroll the opposite direction! It was a little disconcerting to still see it scroll off the same way!!!! :)