No one at this forum lately?

[Robby]

One of us miss-understood the other, my site while using asp.net is "lightning fast"

I never used PHP and have no intention to do so. :)

[PWNettle]

Kinda ironic no ? Forum that talk about .NET using PHP :p

 

This forum spawned off of the VB6 forums and I always found it funny that both feature MS-oriented programming and use PhP-based forums (that probably run on Linux boxes).

 

Speaking of the VB6 forums, I'm a mod over there and I have never heard of a single complaint about forum performance. I'm sure it's slow for some folks but there have been no formal complaints or discussions about forum performance that I recall.

 

*shrug*

 

Paul

[divil]

Internet connection speed aside, the design of both forums is pretty graphics-intensive. Not everybody wants a ton of graphics and every conceivable option listed in the pages they view. Nor do they want popup menus, inline CSS or gradients.

 

Some would rather simply read the forum :)

[PWNettle]

Internet connection speed aside' date=' the design of both forums is pretty graphics-intensive.[/quote']

 

I would disagree. And graphics get cached and shouldn't be an issue over time. These pages are loaded with CSS and javascript stuff but that's all text. This is a graphically intense site. This is a graphically intense site. This is optical overload. That's not even counting purely Flash-based attrocities that are pretty much nothing but graphics. The graphics here are fairly static - the ads change occasionally. A lot of more graphically intense sites have a lot more dynamic graphical content that isn't cached. The forum is not pure text, but then few sites are. I think this site is pretty tame graphics-wise.

 

Not everybody wants a ton of graphics and every conceivable option listed in the pages they view. Nor do they want popup menus' date=' inline CSS or gradients.[/quote']

 

True. I think it's a matter of opinion. I happen to like a lot of the features like quick access to search, 'get new' and subscriptions. Do I use every feature? Probably not, but something I don't use might be someone else's favorite feature. I like the collapsing sections. There are some things I don't like (ads) but that's just a part of paying the bills (and the ads here aren't very obnoxious). I loved the old layout and didn't care for the new layout (after the ownership change) when it first arrived but I've grown to like the feel and features (and have grown to tolerate the look and name change). That's just me though.

 

Over time the VB (and not dotnet) forums have evolved to become more and more complicated (as far as offering more features and (debatable I guess) ease of use) - which has always been well received.

 

Some would rather simply read the forum :)

 

Well, that's what I come here for - to simply read the forum. A lot of the features of the forum make my day to day browsing even easier.

 

Cheers,

Paul

[Banjo]

This forum spawned off of the VB6 forums and I always found it funny that both feature MS-oriented programming and use PhP-based forums (that probably run on Linux boxes).

 

Speaking of the VB6 forums, I'm a mod over there and I have never heard of a single complaint about forum performance. I'm sure it's slow for some folks but there have been no formal complaints or discussions about forum performance that I recall.

 

*shrug*

 

Paul

There's a simple reason for that. There are no MS based forum packages that have comarable feature sets to vBulletin.

[Volte]

Funny you should mention that MMORPG.com is "optical overload" -- looks to me like it has less "non-content" (that is, the non-essential borders and stuff) graphics (and it looks much nicer to boot) than this forum.

 

I really don't care how it is rationalized, but the forum is too graphically intensive for me, and clearly for many others. Plus it's ugly. It lacks color (unless I use one of the other skins which just clash completely, given that the aforementioned unnecessary border graphics prevent any headers or borders from being altered color-wise) and has too much dynamic bloat. Am I the only one that preferred the old Lite w/ Blue style from the old forum? :-\

[PWNettle]

mmorpg.com's layout is way too busy for me - and all the animations wear on me. But different folks like different styles.

 

I really don't see how you can say this forum is graphically intensive compared to that.

 

I liked the previous forum layout too.

 

I don't really mind this layout - it loads instantly for me at home so the "bloat" doesn't affect me negatively.

 

As admins can't you design or suggest alternative skins?

 

but the forum is too graphically intensive for me' date=' and clearly for many others.[/quote']

 

It probably wouldn't do much good to do an objective survey, since the style decisions have been made by the forum ownership, but it'd be interesting to see what people think. I'm not sure that "many others" think the forum is too graphically intensive or bloated - just a handful of people in this thread - some admins in particular. I've never seen a single similar comment outside of this thread (although I don't read every thread in both forums so it's possible there have been comments).

 

*shrug*

 

Paul

[Robby]

I have never liked black backgrounds until I saw mmorpg.com, I agree with Paul that it's busy but I really like the look, and yeah Simon I used Lite w/ Blue from day one.

 

Paul, do a Save As (complete htm) on this thread, there are 94 images at 169 KB the HTML is 362 KB.

I have a P4 2.6, 1 gig RAM it is a very fast system, just not on this site.

 

One more thing, the Text-Area is terrible, I don't like the WYSIWYG feature.

[PlausiblyDamp]

The main index alone runs to over 160K of text and images (no avatars to slow that down), that has got to be an issue for dialup users however you look at it. Basic maths says that it would take 20+ seconds (assuming full 100% speed on a 56K modem) to download the index page.

 

Lite w/ Blue was the only style I ever used before the migration - simple, fast and did the job.

[Arch4ngel]

PWNettle mentioned earlier that all images would be cached after the fist use. Am I wrong ? The 20sec and more are only for the first access. And I don't think that Avatar in posts could cause some slowdown. Normally... all the text load and after you should see images loading.

 

Does the cache work here ?

I would like to have to comments from a 56K user who think that this site is NOT cached and is awfully slow to load.

[Robby]

Depends on your browser settings, if you select "Every visit to a page" or some of the other options.

[ThePentiumGuy]

admins:

is it possible to create a 'lite' skin for this forum? what about something that detects your connection speed and sets the 'lite' skin for the 56kers?

 

becuase i think the bottom line is clear: this forum is filled with graphics and may (or may not) take quite some time to load,

 

this could be the reason why many people dont tend to visit this forum lately - but dont quote me on this, its one factor out of many

 

-Pent

[samsmithnz]

I used to come here several times a day, but then I solved all (most) of my .NET questions and I've spent the last 4 monthes implementing them. Maybe when I have more questions or start my new project in August I'll be back here more.

 

This site loads far too slow for me too, and I have comcast cable, I guess that probably put me off a little bit too...

[PWNettle]

Paul, do a Save As (complete htm) on this thread, there are 94 images at 169 KB the HTML is 362 KB.

I have a P4 2.6, 1 gig RAM it is a very fast system, just not on this site.

 

Wouldn't most of those images be cached (except the occasional new avatar you'd encounter) for typical browsing. I don't know of any good reasons to disable caching of images for a typical user on a typical machine for typical browsing. I'm not sure doing a 'save as' on the whole thread is an accurate measure of what you really have to download. So you might suffer the first time you visit or after clearing your cache but in general graphics shouldn't be an issue.

 

I'm not sure that 362k is accurate - I believe it's creating some kind of total of the htm, includes, and graphics (although I'd like to know how it comes up with that figure since nothing seems to add up). If you either view source and save it as text it's smaller. If you change the main .htm file that's created in the 'save as (complete)' to a .txt it's also smaller (120k). Granted - the text only version isn't accounting for includes - like the .js and .css files, but even with those (58k in the folder created by save complete) it weighs in at less than ~360k. Still, 180k isn't exactly lightweight.

 

I'm not gonna disagree that the forums here use a lot of CSS, javascript, and a lot of tiny graphics. I'm just saying it's not a factor for me - the pages load almost instantly. I also think that most robust websites tend to be a bit on the heavier side. I can see 56k users having some problems - but I would imagine that they'd be having similar problems on just about any other site they visit that isn't pure simple text.

 

I don't see an explanation as to why these pages are extremely fast for me compared to others on cable with good PC specs (like Robby). That is definitely odd. I still contend that it has to be something other than the forum html/graphics/script/css size - otherwise how do you explain that any given forum page, even the largest threads, will load for me in 0-2 seconds but others with similar specs claim they're painfully slow?

 

One more thing' date=' the Text-Area is terrible, I don't like the WYSIWYG feature.[/quote']

 

I'd have no opinion on that since I never use it. I would guess that some folks like it. *shrug* I've always typed in my markup stuff out of habit, I guess. One can always go into display options and change the WYSIWYG to a simple textbox. Actually, I had the WYSIWYG enabled and since I never use it I just switched to basic textbox...

 

Paul

[divil]

Caching has never worked quite right on either forum. Though it's difficult to notice now I have broadband, when I was on 56k it would be downloading all images on every visit to every page.

 

I don't see an explanation as to why these pages are extremely fast for me compared to others on cable with good PC specs

 

Senility? :P

[ThePentiumGuy]

 

Actually, I had the WYSIWYG enabled and since I never use it I just switched to basic textbox...

 

what on earth does that stand for ;)

[PWNettle]

Senility? :P

 

Um. Yeah. My senses are deceiving me and it really takes ages to load these pages. Uh huh.

 

No. I'm not that old and my faculties are fully in tact, thank you.

 

Paul

[Robby]

What You See Is What You Get

[Nerseus]

WYSIWYG = what you see is what you get, very common...

 

As for divil's original comment about this site being "graphically intense", I'd say that's mostly true. While the graphics are small, mostly 1k-8k, there are 84 of them (on this page). That means 84 connections back to the webserver assuming cacheing isn't working which, as divil pointed out, it probably isn't.

 

I don't think "graphical" means just JPG and GIF images. I would guess divil meant this website is very user interactive friendly with dropdown menus, hover images, quick reply boxes, etc. Those things all take space - 100k of pure source code for a simple 1 word post (I tested). There are certainly optimizations that can be made - using a separate CSS file rather than inlined styles for example. Some of these have been brought up in private - helpful comments that we all appreciate.

 

As for the original question: Why are there fewer people? I think someone (Bob maybe?) answered this awhile back. One factor is that it's summer and "kids" aren't in school as much, asking the questions they normally do.

 

I would like to hope that as time goes by, the more common answers or FAQ type questions can be found easier and hence less of the common posts. With a robust search available here and being able to search Google for posts, I would hope more people find the answers they need rather than post a question that's already been answered.

 

I don't think the original questions has much value by itself, other than for curiosity. I propose a different question: Does anyone feel like they're not getting the answers they seek? If only 10 people used these forums but all 10 always found the answer they sought, I think the forums would be a success. As it is, I see most questions getting answered and generally in a very quick response time (within a day or so).

 

The other important question would be: Does anyone feel like they're afraid to post a question? If so, why?

 

-nerseus

[Denaes]

The other important question would be: Does anyone feel like they're afraid to post a question? If so, why?

 

-nerseus

 

Not really afraid... but It's offputting when you ask a VB.Net question and there are constantly jabs and snyde comments made by certain people about the quality of the language (apparently based on past vb incarnations) or developers who use that language.

 

I don't mind bringing up a point, but just lashing out at any mention of VB?

 

I think that's more frustrating, but I've taken some VB.Net specific questions over to the ExtremeVB boards (which arn't nearly as good for .net answers as Xtreme .Net) to avoid the hassle.

[PlausiblyDamp]

Not really afraid... but It's offputting when you ask a VB.Net question and there are constantly jabs and snyde comments made by certain people about the quality of the language (apparently based on past vb incarnations) or developers who use that language.

 

I don't mind bringing up a point, but just lashing out at any mention of VB?

 

I think that's more frustrating, but I've taken some VB.Net specific questions over to the ExtremeVB boards (which arn't nearly as good for .net answers as Xtreme .Net) to avoid the hassle.

 

If you feel a post is offensive, abusive or down right insulting then please use the option to report the post to a moderator (can't remember what the links called). Although as moderators and admins we do our best to identify problem posts some will slip through, if you bring these posts to our attention then we can deal with them (and the poster if need be) much quicker.

Please don't let one or two individuals attitudes dissuade you from posting here - we would much prefer to have members who can post in a rational and level headed manner and as such improve the forum's image to potential members in preference to overly opinionated and rude members (regardless of their technical knowledge).

[Robby]

Denaes; as PD said ... I'll simply reiterated - DO NOT allow a couple of narrow minded ego-maniacs dissuade you from posting anything .NET related - in whichever of the languages you wish. You have an excellent track record here as most our regulars do - no question is too simple.

[hDC_0]

Forum slowness

 

I'm one of those unfortunates that have dial-up at home. I use an AMD 2800 with 56K modem and it takes 25 seconds per page (every page - and i've tried multiple browsers with cache-ing enabled). The old forum never took more than 5.

 

And I'm part of the XVBT site and am one of those who don't complain -- I just don't go there as much anymore. Perhaps others are the same way. There is a similiar thread over there about a fall off in traffic after the re-skinning and the admins tried to trot out a bunch of statistics to prove no slowdown.

 

I think it's both the behind the scenes stuff (PHP,CSS, etc) and the graphics (combined) that are contributing to "bloat". A "lite" version of the forum would be very welcome (maybe bring back the old version in a slightly revised form that it could be optionally used without disturbing the internal structures of the new version)

 

But the main reason I don't come here is that most of the people I deal with use Win98SE and don't see any reason to upgrade. Yes, you can run .Net stuff under 98, but they won't even shell out enough money to get a Win2K license (let alone WinXP) for me to develop at work.

 

I tried submitting a couple .Net sample programs I developed at home to the IT department, but they took one look at the size of the runtime and balked at having to install it over the network. *sigh*

 

But I'll keep stopping by now and then...hope to see more DirectX stuff :)

[sjn78]

I have found a few .net forums and see this one as the better one of them all. I don't particullay like the ones where they give you stars or ratings and that stuff. It sort of takes away the purpose of helping others in good way and not just to get recognition.

 

There are sometimes I feel reluctant to put up a post because I think its something so simple, I should be getting it worked out myself. But in general, I have learnt more from this site than all of the others combined.

 

I do get annoyed at the posts who asked a question and then want someone else to code it for them, not so the small snippets but rather a largish function/sub that may take someone 30 or more minutes to perfect.

 

Speed wise I don't have any hassles. I'm on cable and when it goes slower than normal, I just figure its the ISP having a lot of traffic at the time.

[alp0001]

There is a similiar thread over there about a fall off in traffic after the re-skinning and the admins tried to trot out a bunch of statistics to prove no slowdown.

The numbers show the facts of whats currently going on. ;)

 

I don't think anyone has mentioned this, but there are options to turn off the "extra features" in the Options Profile. Try disabling a few of the visible post elements (like avatars)...this should speed things up a little bit.

 

As for me, I have no problems at either site. Of course I'm using a fast connection though, so I really shouldn't say anything in this thread. :)