Thread
Welcome back!
Oh, and aside from all the griping, thanks Tom for putting in the effort... I'm sure it feels like a thankless task right about now ;-)
I am hoping that the Subsilver2 theme is enabled sometime soon.
I understand it takes only a few clicks, since it's already installed.
It doesn't have to be the default. The wonderful thing is that you can choose which theme you want. You can have the new theme or the old theme or any other theme that the board administrator chooses to install. Users can go into their control panel and select their desired theme. It's a wonderful feature.
I understand it takes only a few clicks, since it's already installed.
It doesn't have to be the default. The wonderful thing is that you can choose which theme you want. You can have the new theme or the old theme or any other theme that the board administrator chooses to install. Users can go into their control panel and select their desired theme. It's a wonderful feature.
I'm OK with the new theme, but I think it would make people happy if they could choose. If someone designed a phpBB 3 theme that looked like System 7, would you install it? How about a few themes, like
System 1-6
System 7
Mac OS 8-9
Mac OS X
I could take a stab at it if you think you'd use my work. I have a setup where I can develop phpBB3 themes. Let me know if you're interested.
System 1-6
System 7
Mac OS 8-9
Mac OS X
I could take a stab at it if you think you'd use my work. I have a setup where I can develop phpBB3 themes. Let me know if you're interested.
How many times I see this line but never understand it. Inefficient and lacking in standard features yes, that's obvious. Buggy, not so much. I haven't run into bugs in a long time and the times I do it's a mod that's been added, not the original software. As for security, I'd trust 2 more than 3 at this time simply because it's been sitting there for years and is not having new things added, which is where a lot of security holes come from to begin with. The last hole in 2 was with the usergroups and that was addressed with the final security update. In interest of heading off problems with a forum I run I've gone looking and I found nothing left. 3 on the other hand seems to have one or two new things show up on a regular basis, much as 2 did in its earlier stages. Most software is that way.
2 or 3 both can work fine, just depends on your needs. 68k seems to still be running ok, so I don't have any complaints on the upgrade.
The poster's name is right under the subject line of every message. It is very easy to see while reading the post. I don't see why it has to be included again to the left or right and think that it should be removed altogether. If you need to shoot a PM, know when they joined, or any of that other stuff, just click on the username and get their entire profile.
I'm one of the people who have disabled the avatars and signatures. The forums are not only much easier to read, but they are also more true to the System 6/7 design philosophy IMHO. Things are to the point, and relatively fast. About the only thing that doesn't fit that old school philosophy is the low contrast colour scheme, which is terrible on LCD displays.
I'm one of the people who have disabled the avatars and signatures. The forums are not only much easier to read, but they are also more true to the System 6/7 design philosophy IMHO. Things are to the point, and relatively fast. About the only thing that doesn't fit that old school philosophy is the low contrast colour scheme, which is terrible on LCD displays.
Agreed - but I think it would be even nicer to remove that column altogether. I am unsure if that's an option as part of phpBB 3's default feature-set though, but if it was an option in the preferences, I think I would disable that column.
Yes, is it ever going to be enabled?
Geeez guys, we've had phpbb3 for what, a day and a half so far? Give him a break already..
It takes literally like one minute to enable, and in doing so ends several people's bitching and moaning.
I'll also actually be able to use the forum. I still can't tell if a thread or sub-forum has new posts or not. I keep re-reading the same posts over again. I have read luddite's post in the bug report thread several times now.
Maybe so, but do you really expect him to do it in his sleep?
You can't be serious... I'll grant you that the colour scheme is a bit wishy-washy, but even I've got used to the functionality by now. You know you can click on "View New Posts" to show threads that have new posts and then just click on the orange icon in front of the subject to start reading where you left off... of course if you don't log off you'll keep seeing the same posts.
Really, it's no different from the old version... I'm starting to think you're just being curmudgeonly.
I don't know when he's up. He's in the UK but I think he goes to bed late. He was up at this time yesterday if I recall. He was up today and was on the forum and probably in the admin panel and probably even saw the link to enable the theme.
I'm not a huge MySQL person but is it possible to have a phpBB2 version of the site sharing the same database? See, this is sort of like Vista, there's naturally work behind it but it still gets griped about. I for one just see no need for all the extra features phpBB 3 has, and it would be nice to see the old theme back, maybe even a possibility for text-only version also.
I quite like this look! My only comment is that it would be nice if the signature portions could be better marked - that line is quite faint and the sig appears as if it's part of the post. Maybe this will be less of a concern after a while; after all we're only a few days into this new version. Then again maybe it's my not so young eyes 8-o
Thanks Tom for all your work
Thanks Tom for all your work
I quite detest this new theme as well. It's way too busy, with all of the useful elements being tiny, faint-coloured little things off in the corner. Everything is blue with no contrast! The phpbb designers must be mad or windows users.
I've activated the subsilver2 theme. Sorry that it took so long, but it's not as simple as just "clicking a button". I had to make a few customisations (site logo, menu, removing postcount etc), and I simply haven't had time over the last few days... so sue me for actually having a life outside of the internet...
Now I await the bitching that it's not enough like the theme on the old forums... [
] ]'>
Now I await the bitching that it's not enough like the theme on the old forums... [
] ]'>No, it's not possible – at least not without major rewriting of phpBB2 (which, after a few years of work, would probably give you something very like phpBB3). The systems use a completely different database structures.
Thanks. It's good enough. The page numbers are near the link so now I subconsciously click them again, the icons are right, the avatars are right. You made Mr. Unnamed Adopt a Mac Logo happy again.I've activated the subsilver2 theme. Sorry that it took so long, but it's not as simple as just "clicking a button". I had to make a few customisations (site logo, menu, removing postcount etc), and I simply haven't had time over the last few days... so sue me for actually having a life outside of the internet...
Now I await the bitching that it's not enough like the theme on the old forums... [
That's not the point. If 10% (or 3%, or 0.5%) of us were blind, and the forum was impossible to use with a text reader, would you consider that acceptable?
IMHO, being able to use the forums from a 68k is a basic requirement, not an optional one.
In my opinion, yes. You can't necessarily make something like this [i.e. a complex webforum] compatible with everyone and everything that tries to access it, to expect so is just silly. As per classic macs requiring to be able to access it, well, in the grand scheme of things it makes sense what with this being a forum 'devoted' to them and all, and would be nice for the three people that use it, but would it really be practical?
How well did the snitz board, or phpbb2 for that matter, render with lynx on an SE five years ago?
The old theme was no more compatible with screen reading software than this one is.
My impression of Snitz is that it worked very well on older browsers, but that it was hellaciously difficult (like: impossible) to maintain from a server end of things, because it used that JET database on a Windows server.
I suspect that it would probably be possible to create a theme for the forum using basic tables, html, a more contrasty set of colors, etc, although the question is who will put in the time to create the theme and make sure it does everything we want the forum to do.
My impression of Snitz is that it worked very well on older browsers, but that it was hellaciously difficult (like: impossible) to maintain from a server end of things, because it used that JET database on a Windows server.
I suspect that it would probably be possible to create a theme for the forum using basic tables, html, a more contrasty set of colors, etc, although the question is who will put in the time to create the theme and make sure it does everything we want the forum to do.
Then what's the point of having threads like, "Post your youtube [etc] videos here!", or all these links to other sites that can't be viewed on such a machine? A lot of eBay auctions (depending on their styles) can't usually be viewed on a 68k, just to name an example.
Thank you! for enabling Sub-Silver2. I detest the new look. It may simply be a fear and loathing of change on my part, but frankly, I don't get the attraction of changing things all the time. Once it works, the easiest thing is to leave it alone. Climbing the learning curve is a real cost. But with the SubSilver2 theme in effect, I am happy again.
Of course, I'd still be reading all my Mac conversations on comp.sys.mac.xxxx if that's where the conversations still were. I still don't understand the need for web based fora when there's a nice universal, easy to find, hierarchically arranged-by-topic set of discussion groups that cover every topic under the sun--and quite a few out of the sun too.
It's like I used to tell folks in the 90s when they asked me which computer was the easiest to use. I'd say, "The one you already know how to use is the easiest." Of course, if they didn't already know one, I'd point them at the Mac.
Of course, I'd still be reading all my Mac conversations on comp.sys.mac.xxxx if that's where the conversations still were. I still don't understand the need for web based fora when there's a nice universal, easy to find, hierarchically arranged-by-topic set of discussion groups that cover every topic under the sun--and quite a few out of the sun too.
It's like I used to tell folks in the 90s when they asked me which computer was the easiest to use. I'd say, "The one you already know how to use is the easiest." Of course, if they didn't already know one, I'd point them at the Mac.
Regardless of the length of time spent in preparation, which was invisible to all of us but those doing the sweat-work, the implementation—on one visit the old, and on the next, the new—deserves much commendation. Commendation with jam on it, considering that very few genuine hiccups, as distinct from æsthetic or functional considerations, accompanied the transition.
However, I add my disappointment in some aspects of the redesign to that of others. With no clear vertical demarcation between post-column and poster-column, and even with a dark line between them, left-right reading can flick back to a clear vertical left demarcation as a border and proceed to the right-hand natural page-border. The poster-column is presently intrusive on the right, and much more easily overlooked, 'un'-seen or ignored on the left. I, for one, do value a clear indication of who the poster is, but avatar and name is enough detail.
Why retain the multicoloured Apple of antiquity and then bleach it in the same anæmic style as the general forum colouring? Why separate the related links new posts/your posts/unanswered posts? I also value quick access to my and other posters' existing posts. Repeating for the benefit of search-challenged posters is much less attractive than linking to existing answers. This is especially true if the existing answers contain complex sequences of procedure or advice.
I agree about accessibility for older Macs/browsers. Apart from the inevitable (and worthy of congratulation) first-time posts about being able to reach the Forums from an original Mac, none but the foolhardy will spend more than microseconds on the 'Net without firewall, stealth mode, NAT, copious RAM and cast-iron underpants (shorts to them as prefer them), so it is hardly a debility not to be able to use 68K Macs. That the oldies are not equipped is a fact, not a dastardly plot that the universal villains They have hatched. 68K Macs were born before the realities of the Web, good and bad, came to pass.
Overall, a fine structure from ~tl et alii. Now for some military spit-and-polish.
de
However, I add my disappointment in some aspects of the redesign to that of others. With no clear vertical demarcation between post-column and poster-column, and even with a dark line between them, left-right reading can flick back to a clear vertical left demarcation as a border and proceed to the right-hand natural page-border. The poster-column is presently intrusive on the right, and much more easily overlooked, 'un'-seen or ignored on the left. I, for one, do value a clear indication of who the poster is, but avatar and name is enough detail.
Why retain the multicoloured Apple of antiquity and then bleach it in the same anæmic style as the general forum colouring? Why separate the related links new posts/your posts/unanswered posts? I also value quick access to my and other posters' existing posts. Repeating for the benefit of search-challenged posters is much less attractive than linking to existing answers. This is especially true if the existing answers contain complex sequences of procedure or advice.
I agree about accessibility for older Macs/browsers. Apart from the inevitable (and worthy of congratulation) first-time posts about being able to reach the Forums from an original Mac, none but the foolhardy will spend more than microseconds on the 'Net without firewall, stealth mode, NAT, copious RAM and cast-iron underpants (shorts to them as prefer them), so it is hardly a debility not to be able to use 68K Macs. That the oldies are not equipped is a fact, not a dastardly plot that the universal villains They have hatched. 68K Macs were born before the realities of the Web, good and bad, came to pass.
Overall, a fine structure from ~tl et alii. Now for some military spit-and-polish.
de
I changed to SubSilver. It is MUCH better in terms of layout.
I like the deeper colors on the apple. MUCH cooler and more modern.
Oh yeah. I mean, 68Ks are SO modern... :
Death to the new theme!
For what it's worth, I spent many moons hoping for a 68k Mac newsgroup before I decided to bother with things like web forums. Newsgroups would work fine on older machines. Indeed, I used them for a fairly long time from an Apple II. First using a shell account, then using QWK packets that were downloaded to the machine and viewed locally.
After all we deal with people talking from behind a keyboard. The demands placed upon the computer, or the user who has to maintain and upgrade that computer, should not be very high.
When I used the usenet, my only machines were antiquated ones. And Apple II in 1997 was my only machine. Not a secondary machine. Not a main machine. It was my only machine. When I hopped on these forums, particularly back in the Snitz days, it was pretty much the same story. Only I was using vintage 68k gear like a IIci or a Q950 as my only machine. Of course, that couldn't be sustained. While the web can be efficiently viewed on a vintage machine, most websites preclude that option because the end user has little control over how it is implemented. With time the people who visited the forums seemed to be less interested in 68k Macs, I suppose, because you couldn't just use a 68k Mac to view it.
Contrast that to the Apple II world, where you can still access comp.sys.apple2 with an Apple II. People still seem to be chatting about the machines, and doing cool stuff with the machines. Maybe it's because the Apple II was a dead end and people didn't move on because there wasn't a better Apple II. Or maybe it's because there was a forum that accepted them.
After all we deal with people talking from behind a keyboard. The demands placed upon the computer, or the user who has to maintain and upgrade that computer, should not be very high.
When I used the usenet, my only machines were antiquated ones. And Apple II in 1997 was my only machine. Not a secondary machine. Not a main machine. It was my only machine. When I hopped on these forums, particularly back in the Snitz days, it was pretty much the same story. Only I was using vintage 68k gear like a IIci or a Q950 as my only machine. Of course, that couldn't be sustained. While the web can be efficiently viewed on a vintage machine, most websites preclude that option because the end user has little control over how it is implemented. With time the people who visited the forums seemed to be less interested in 68k Macs, I suppose, because you couldn't just use a 68k Mac to view it.
Contrast that to the Apple II world, where you can still access comp.sys.apple2 with an Apple II. People still seem to be chatting about the machines, and doing cool stuff with the machines. Maybe it's because the Apple II was a dead end and people didn't move on because there wasn't a better Apple II. Or maybe it's because there was a forum that accepted them.
This theme looks so normal under Mint on firefox.
Thanks Tom! I find myself comforted and warmed now, after so long using phpbb variants I suspect I shall never be able to leave. ;D