GregP Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 Trade you my computer skills for your skills with guitars. Quote Link to comment
Kevan Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 i just dont like posts with 10-15 links to pictures, when the could all be on one page, i prefer it much better like that. ← Be VERY, VERY careful what you wish for. It should be a simple enough hack I reckon. ← I'll look around the Invision forums for some code, but......if the new code slows the forum down at all, it'll get yanked immediately. How we have it set up for now is that when a thread "graduates" from the In Progress section to the Tutorials section, all the pics go with it, and are 'unlinked' (i.e. displayed). It will remain that way until further notice. Quote Link to comment
lovekraft Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 Dial-up is very out-dated these days, and the internet isnt really made for it anymore, IMO. ← Amen! I live in podunkville France, and I've had broadband for two years already... ← That may or may not be true, but you are definitely missing the point (with apologies to GregP, but this is one time that it's true, without question.). One forum owner on dialup trumps any other cards in the pack! Now that everyone has vented about how anachronistic and uncool things are around here, and we all feel very superior about our high speed connections and technological supremacy, can we give a little thought to that horse mentioned several pages back? It's been deceased for quite some time now - when are y'all gonna stop beating it? Quote Link to comment
marksound Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 Well, I get the point. Big pics bad. Bad big pics! Going back to the forum now. Quote Link to comment
westhemann Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 GregP: There was a thread a few months ago of how slow PG was getting, and how come it was going down all the time. Even if we all have DSL, it would still take time to load all the pics. At least that's what i think, unless i'm the only one experiencing it and everyone who did complain about PG being slow doesn't have this problem anymore. Jamie ← everyone hosts there pictures externally so that wouldn't affect PG bandwidth. ← how many times does it have to be written in plain english before the wannabee intellectuals get it? load times for threads get slower when more images are posted...end of story...capishe?i don't care if another site IS hosting the pic...pg thread load times are still affected. anyway...have all the fun you want looking silly...we have been over this same thing enough that if you don't get it,you never will. as always...if you don't like the rules,go play on stereokiller.com or something and by the way...it is "their" ← i would love for you to talk to me like that to my face. ← i have to delete your hissy fit.it looks like you broke some rules after all,now didn't you? but don't worry.i copied it in all it's glory for leisurely perusal in the mod section.i assure you we will all get a big laugh about it ***YAWN*** Quote Link to comment
feylya Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 As for the resizing issue, it's supported in basic HTML: <IMG SRC="pic" WIDTH="300"> That would force the picture to be 300 pixels wide while scaling the height in the same ratio ie if the picture was originally 600x300, it would become 300x150. Quote Link to comment
marksound Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 GregP: There was a thread a few months ago of how slow PG was getting, and how come it was going down all the time. Even if we all have DSL, it would still take time to load all the pics. At least that's what i think, unless i'm the only one experiencing it and everyone who did complain about PG being slow doesn't have this problem anymore. Jamie ← everyone hosts there pictures externally so that wouldn't affect PG bandwidth. ← how many times does it have to be written in plain english before the wannabee intellectuals get it? load times for threads get slower when more images are posted...end of story...capishe?i don't care if another site IS hosting the pic...pg thread load times are still affected. anyway...have all the fun you want looking silly...we have been over this same thing enough that if you don't get it,you never will. as always...if you don't like the rules,go play on stereokiller.com or something and by the way...it is "their" ← i would love for you to talk to me like that to my face. ← i have to delete your hissy fit.it looks like you broke some rules after all,now didn't you? but don't worry.i copied it in all it's glory for leisurely perusal in the mod section.i assure you we will all get a big laugh about it ***YAWN*** ← Quote Link to comment
Maher Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 (edited) GregP: There was a thread a few months ago of how slow PG was getting, and how come it was going down all the time. Even if we all have DSL, it would still take time to load all the pics. At least that's what i think, unless i'm the only one experiencing it and everyone who did complain about PG being slow doesn't have this problem anymore. Jamie ← everyone hosts there pictures externally so that wouldn't affect PG bandwidth. ← how many times does it have to be written in plain english before the wannabee intellectuals get it? load times for threads get slower when more images are posted...end of story...capishe?i don't care if another site IS hosting the pic...pg thread load times are still affected. anyway...have all the fun you want looking silly...we have been over this same thing enough that if you don't get it,you never will. as always...if you don't like the rules,go play on stereokiller.com or something and by the way...it is "their" ← i would love for you to talk to me like that to my face. ← i have to delete your hissy fit.it looks like you broke some rules after all,now didn't you? but don't worry.i copied it in all it's glory for leisurely perusal in the mod section.i assure you we will all get a big laugh about it ***YAWN*** ← that really bothers me honest. Edited profanity.....BP Edited April 12, 2005 by bluespresence Quote Link to comment
Maher Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 As for the resizing issue, it's supported in basic HTML: <IMG SRC="pic" WIDTH="300"> That would force the picture to be 300 pixels wide while scaling the height in the same ratio ie if the picture was originally 600x300, it would become 300x150. ← that would make the picture look smaller but it wouldnt affect its size so it would take just as long to load Quote Link to comment
feylya Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 Yes, I know that. If you read my original post where I suggested it, you'll see that I said it wouldn't affect the file size but it would solve LGM's beef with having to scroll to view the image, which is the topic of this thread. Quote Link to comment
Maher Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 sorry didnt see that. Quote Link to comment
LGM Guitars Posted April 12, 2005 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 Geez, I didn't mean for this to turn into such a big issue. Personally, I have no problem with pictures being linked, works fine for me that way, and then you can have a bigger picture. I just hate having to scroll the screen to read every single post because a picture is to big to be seen in full. Besides, when I open a picture from a link, even if it's a billion pixels wide, IE opens it, and then reduces it automatically to fit in a window. Plus, it can be physically bigger without scrolling the screen since all the member info on the left side of the forum wouldn't be there. Basically, I didn't mean to have the rules debated, I simply thought they should be followed. And having to scroll side to side is annoying, clicking links isn't. I click on links all day long, pictures sure don't bother me in link form. Actually, I find it quite hilarious when people talk about having to click a link being to much of a hassle, oh no, one more click for your poor finger, anyone remember the comodore 64 days, when that was a top of the line computer? I remember waiting for a game to load, turn it on when you come home from school for lunch so it's loaded by the time you get home for the day LOL!!! Or remember before there were digital camera's and if you wanted a picture on the computer you had to scan it after taking it with a film camera and having it developed? Yup, links sure are a hassle Quote Link to comment
Guitarfrenzy Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 This subject has brought up some detail that I must have overlooked though. I thought that In Progress had a 4 picture limit the last time I checked, but I guess it got changed. Hum.. we'll even Wes thought that it was that way, so I don't feel so bad. I guess I need to edit my latest In Progress post because I didn't know of that rule, I thought that In Progress, Tutorials, and GOTM was the only ones that could let you post more than one picture. Is there any chance that the In Progress can be brought up to 4 pics per post, or at least to the people who donated? Kevan?, Wes?.. That way at least more people will have reason to actually help Brian with the cost of PG and donate some money... Does anyone else think this is a decent idea? Quote Link to comment
xlr8 Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 Does anyone else think this is a decent idea? ← Absolutely, provided people size their pics accordingly. I think I'm going to start using Photoshops 'save for web' feature to reduce the file size even further. Quote Link to comment
Guitarfrenzy Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 Does anyone else think this is a decent idea? ← Absolutely, provided people size their pics accordingly. I think I'm going to start using Photoshops 'save for web' feature to reduce the file size even further. ← That's exactly what I do.. I make the picture 5 " x 7" and 72 resolution... Then use Save For The Web in Photoshop, while making sure the picture is under 60k in size. It's not that hard to do.. and compared to others whose pictures are sometimes 250k in size.. you can add way more pictures instead of just one. Basically though, the smaller the file is for the picture, kb's that is, then the faster it will load and won't be a burden on 56k users also. Quote Link to comment
Kevan Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 Is there any chance that the In Progress can be brought up to 4 pics per post, or at least to the people who donated? Kevan?, Wes?.. That way at least more people will have reason to actually help Brian with the cost of PG and donate some money... Does anyone else think this is a decent idea? ← Good call. Let me go thru this with Brian, and see what we can come up with. In the meantime, let's stick to the 'one per post' in the In Progress area. That's exactly what I do.. I make the picture 5 " x 7" and 72 resolution... Then use Save For The Web in Photoshop, while making sure the picture is under 60k in size. It's not that hard to do.. and compared to others whose pictures are sometimes 250k in size.. you can add way more pictures instead of just one. Basically though, the smaller the file is for the picture, kb's that is, then the faster it will load and won't be a burden on 56k users also. ← Another good call, but instead of using inches, use pixels. :-) 600 x 600 max. (for now) Quote Link to comment
Devon Headen Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 That's what the program I posted does, but you can batch as many images at once as you want. Quote Link to comment
GregP Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 LGM - it's not really the physical clicking of the links that's a hassle. It's the not knowing what the heck is going to be behind link 1 of 12, and having to go through all of links 1 through 12 to find a half-decent picture. That's really the only part that irks me. It's far more annoying to go through someone's post with 8 blind links than to just see 3 pictures. On the other hand, and this is the point I think some people are making, it's extra-annoying to see 8 pics, all too large. I agree with that. Greg Quote Link to comment
westhemann Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 even Wes thought that it was that way, so I don't feel so bad. yeah...if i remember right i think it was that way before the tutorials section. Quote Link to comment
Maiden69 Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 how hard it is to set the parameters of the pics we post? This is what I do, and I post 4 pics in the size of one 600x700. I know it is a bit longer, but at least you can see every pic with enough detail. Like here Quote Link to comment
Guitarfrenzy Posted April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 Thanks Kevan and Wes.. hopefully Brian and the rest of the crew will really consider making the change back to 4 pics per post, for the In Progress section. I also agree that the 600x600 max is great and that a under 100k per picture limit should help those on dial up. I'll go back and redo the previous post I had done in the In Progress section before I found out about the limit changing. Maybe there can be some kind of compromise, but whatever you guys decide upon, I'll respect. Quote Link to comment
thedoctor Posted April 20, 2005 Report Share Posted April 20, 2005 (edited) LK, I just got the upgrade kit for the ACME FF 2000 ! It includes the DEDHRS ver 7.081. Installed it on my laptop and absolutely SCREAMS on dial-up!! Thought you would want to know. I forgot to say, get the dumasPROelim upgrade, while you are at it. Makes the system run much faster but does NOT support Windows Open. Tried it and they just fell shut again. Edited April 20, 2005 by thedoctor Quote Link to comment
marksound Posted April 21, 2005 Report Share Posted April 21, 2005 LK, I just got the upgrade kit for the ACME FF 2000 ! It includes the DEDHRS ver 7.081. Installed it on my laptop and absolutely SCREAMS on dial-up!! Thought you would want to know. I forgot to say, get the dumasPROelim upgrade, while you are at it. Makes the system run much faster but does NOT support Windows Open. Tried it and they just fell shut again. ← Dude, no more caffeine. Please. Quote Link to comment
Guitarfrenzy Posted April 23, 2005 Report Share Posted April 23, 2005 I've seen some people in the In Progress section posting 4 pics a post and was wondering if the rules changed again without me knowing? Just wondering if it's been discussed already, no big deal though, I'm not rushing anyone. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.