quote: Nah that's ok. I like it. I find it better because it takes less time to load the picture.
Actually, no, it doesn't. It still has to load the entire picture, so the length of time taken to download it is the same. It just means you can fit it all on one page, if you desire (although I find it pixellates it badly enough to make enlarging the picture mandatory).
It's a new feature for IE5.5, BTW.
I have to agree too, the Ent-C bridge is a bit of an anachronism compared to the STVI Ent-A, Excelsior, and Generations Ent-B sets. The ST V one would be fine without those later ones, but as it is, this is a nice solution. It fits in greatly with the Ent-B and Ent-D, although I think it terms of comfort it possibly leans slightly too much towards the Enterprise-D. Roddenberry (and early dialogue) seems to imply that the Galaxy class was the first to go all out for the "technology unchained" thing, to increase comfort levels and all that.
And I know it's a dead point, and this is all I want to say on the matter, but Sean, people were being fairly reasonable. Yeah, people expect lots of images here, but downloading lots of large images at once over a slow modem is a pain, especially if there's a cut off point which means you don't get the whole image. And the other complain - about it messing up the board layout - is also fairly valid. Although I don't think there are any hard and fast rules about embedded pictures, a generally accepted rule is that if the picture is so large that people are having to scroll across to read the text on posts, then it is too big.
And finally, yeah, the two hour thing is a new feature if this version of UBB. It's not a bug. The idea is that, basically, Charles hates changing the past. I think he read 1984 a lot, or something. You can edit a post 10 minutes after you've made it, and it won't mention that it's been editted (if you are correcting spelling mistakes, or whatever). People have posted stuff before, others have responded to it, and then the person has changed their original post, leading to all sorts of confusion and madness. Hence, you can't edit your posts ages after you posted them.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Seanr - I've loved your posts here since like 1999? with your transporter room set... please stay and ignore the bitching.
Simple solution people complaining about pictures... TURN OFF PICTURES! Then when you want to view a picture... right click and view it. Or just stop the whole page from loading.
After the plastic comments that I have received about my problems viewing the updated board with NS4.7 It seems that everyone who wants to read/look at the Flare forums must be running a 1.5GHz 512Mb Fibre-optic/broadband connection. Oh and it better all be microsoft.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: It seems that everyone who wants to read/look at the Flare forums must be running a 1.5GHz 512Mb Fibre-optic/broadband connection. Oh and it better all be microsoft.
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: After the plastic comments that I have received about my problems viewing the updated board with NS4.7 It seems that everyone who wants to read/look at the Flare forums must be running a 1.5GHz 512Mb Fibre-optic/broadband connection.
Er, no, we're not. If everyone was, there would be no problem if all the pictures were embedded. But because a lot of people are on dial-up modems, links are better. And they also stop the board format from mucking up.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Hand on EdipisChopis, 1.5 gig what? That's far too small to be a hard drive, but if that's your RAM, then it's frankly obscene.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
I have two gigabytes of system memory. Bye-bye swapfile.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Since they don't make Athlons that fast, that must be a P4 system thus 1.5 gigs of Rambus RAM thats just gross. Thats about $1200 of RAM, thats worth more than my entire computer.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Indeed. For pity's sake people, I understand that you like to keep your computers up-to-date, but there's cutting edge, and then there's falling off the front of the blade.
I mean, what possible performance difference are you going to get from having 1 gig of memory compared to 2 gig? You could have spent that money on CDs, or food, or going out, or something even remotly useful.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
But think of the power, and prestige! And running Quake III at five more frames a second! We're in admirational overload!
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: I mean, what possible performance difference are you going to get from having 1 gig of memory compared to 2 gig? You could have spent that money on CDs, or food, or going out, or something even remotly useful.
If you're running a dual processor system (i.e. enough processing power to keep up with the RAM), 2GB would be enormously usefull for rendering 3D stuff like my bridge sets. These sets currently are taking between twenty and thirty minutes to render, five to ten minutes of which is blown on generating shadowmaps (a very RAM intensive process). It takes that long because even with 256MB of RAM, the damn thing swaps CONSTANTLY. With 2GB of RAM, that'd never be a problem. Then, the problem would be enough processor power to keep the computer working fast enough to utilize all of the RAM.
In short, I'd _KILL_ for a machine like that!!!! Think what I could do if I could get the render time for this set at 1152x864 down to a mere five minutes per frame! Of course, the ultimate goal is to be able to render in real time at at least 640x480 (imagine playing Quake or UT on one of my sets!).
"The ulimate measure of a man is not where he stands in times of comfort and convenience, but where he stands in times of challenge and controversy." -- Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, it'd be remotely useful for someone like you, but for those whom running AOLIM and Frontpage at the same time is their only activity, they mightn't get the best usage out of it.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Such as yourself?
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Sure, why not?
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Then what exactly is your problem with people who run more demanding programs (such as 3D Studio / Lightwave), and upgrade their computers to meet those demands?
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
