bfarber

If we added a way for users to select which forums show up in the view new posts feed, would that be a sufficient solution? That's something that I think a lot more users would find useful, but should also address your primary concern?

There's no magic "make faster" button, or "make faster" line of code we can add. If you are having specific issues it might be best to submit a ticket so we can take a look at your site. Perhaps you are missing an index on a database table. Perhaps there's a slow query that we've not seen to date that is running on your site. Perhaps you have customizations that cause this (for instance, I've seen the unreal portal cause massive slowdowns because it does a group by against topics/posts table on the homepage....bad idea).

I mean, "make it faster" is a noble goal, and of course we work to improve performance with every release, but it's not black and white, and if there was something magical that could be done to instantly boost speed we certainly would.

I think you can tell that my estimate was sarcastic. Nevertheless, it's been reported already, more than once. :P

If you want to see the original attachment, just view the original post. :D

And this is exactly why they generally don't. If something happens that keeps it from happening, people say "But you promised it in this thread right here. See that thread, they said it was going to happen, but it did not! OMG IPS IS HORRIBLE! I can't do my new site and the world is ending... oh what a world, what a world!"

OK... so I'm being a bit sarcastic there, lol. However when something happens that keeps a date from being released, people tend to freak out. As someone who deals with managing user exceptions at work, I know exactly where they're coming from with being reluctant to give any kind of dates.

I'm afraid we don't have the resources to do that sort of thing. When a fix is simple we sometimes post a patch. When it's not so simple, it would be an extreme waste of our time to try to post instructions for every patch and then have our support department have access to every patch. Further to that, the patches have not yet undergone QA testing, so it's possible they could break other things.

While I'm sure when you are affected by an issue you want it fixed as soon as possible, we have to stick to some sort of organization that will benefit all of our customers in the most efficient manner. Fixing reported issues and then releasing an update to address those issues is pretty much the norm in this industry.

To gain access to the peer to peer areas you just need to log out and back in now that your order has been approved.

If 50 accounts showed up within an hour from "x.x.x.x" would you not consider that a red flag though?

I agree, going by IP address alone can cause problems. But that's not to say IP address shouldn't be factored in.

Your analogys are off.

Mac OSX is more resource intensive than Mac OS9

HOWEVER, through out the 10 series, they continually work at improving resource usage and efficiency so that by the time you reach the end of the 10 series, it is as efficient as possible (and 9/10 more so than the first iteration of the series).

As I've said before, Windows 7 is what Vista should have been. Really it's just an update to Vista, however Microsoft doesn't generally do releases in the same fashion. They release patches, or an entirely new version, and not much in between. To that extent, since Windows 7 is building and improving upon Vista, my analogy above still stands.

Same with Firefox or Opera or Safari.

Firefox 3 uses WAYYY more resources than Firefox 2. HOWEVER, Firefox 3.0.1 improved upon 3.0.0, and 3.0.2 improved upon 3.0.1.

It's the same way here. IPB3 uses more resources than IPB 2 (as a blatant general statement - this largely depends upon the features you enable). However, 3.0.1 uses less resources than 3.0.0 did, and 3.0.2 improved greatly upon 3.0.1. It's probable that you will see improvements with 3.0.3 over 3.0.2. And this is what we've said all along in this topic. Over the lifetime of the 3 series, we will continuously improve the software so that it becomes as efficient as possible.


You have to use analogies that match up here. :)

One more thing to add, though I'm not sure it'll help you any. As technology progresses, you'll find you simply need more resources to stay up to date. It's how computers and software work, I'm afraid.

2.0 uses more resources than 1.3
2.1 uses more resources than 2.0
2.3 uses more resources than 2.1
3.0 uses more resources than 2.3

Windows ME used more resources than Windows 98
Windows 2000 used more resources than NT/ME/98
Windows XP uses more resources than Win2K
Windows Vista uses more resources than Windows XP


Unfortunately you simply can't progress and add all the gee-whiz bells and whistles everyone wants without some sort of tradeoff in resource usage. I'm positive we could make IPB 3 just as efficient as IPB 2.3.....if we were working with the exact same feature set. i.e. get rid of friendly urls, get rid of the report center, get rid of personal conversations, get rid of the new skin. But then we'd be on 2.3, wouldn't we?

Mac OS X 10.5.9 Snow Leopard uses FEWER resources than Mac OS X 10.5.8 Leopard.
Ditto for a couple of other version of the operating system.

I don't think telling your customers that "Windows is fat and bloated, so we can be, too" is exactly what they want to hear.

"It's how computers and software work" is not entirely true. Look at how Firefox, Safari, Opera, and other pieces of software get faster, smaller, or both with each iteration. Even Windows7 is supposed to be less of a pig than Vista. There goes your Microsoft alibi.

One more thing to add, though I'm not sure it'll help you any. As technology progresses, you'll find you simply need more resources to stay up to date. It's how computers and software work, I'm afraid.

2.0 uses more resources than 1.3
2.1 uses more resources than 2.0
2.3 uses more resources than 2.1
3.0 uses more resources than 2.3

Windows ME used more resources than Windows 98
Windows 2000 used more resources than NT/ME/98
Windows XP uses more resources than Win2K
Windows Vista uses more resources than Windows XP


Unfortunately you simply can't progress and add all the gee-whiz bells and whistles everyone wants without some sort of tradeoff in resource usage. I'm positive we could make IPB 3 just as efficient as IPB 2.3.....if we were working with the exact same feature set. i.e. get rid of friendly urls, get rid of the report center, get rid of personal conversations, get rid of the new skin. But then we'd be on 2.3, wouldn't we?

We will not be adding it back in. It inevitably leads to the "how can I reindex member numbers sequentially" and "how can I change my member number" topics from users who don't understand the technicalities behind it.

I upgraded my forums from 2.3.6 with 8900 members and 68k post. Our topics load in .5 to 1s "processing time" with 73 active users and im not even sure if theres any memory caching going on or not yet.


slower yes but its reasonable.

I'd like to see the RTE supported for Safari and other webkit browsers. I don't know what the technical hurdles are in providing such support, but I have seen WYSIWYG editors for forums that have no problem with Safari. so maybe it is now possible.

I'm afraid we don't have the resources to do that sort of thing. When a fix is simple we sometimes post a patch. When it's not so simple, it would be an extreme waste of our time to try to post instructions for every patch and then have our support department have access to every patch. Further to that, the patches have not yet undergone QA testing, so it's possible they could break other things.

While I'm sure when you are affected by an issue you want it fixed as soon as possible, we have to stick to some sort of organization that will benefit all of our customers in the most efficient manner. Fixing reported issues and then releasing an update to address those issues is pretty much the norm in this industry.

I'm afraid we don't have the resources to do that sort of thing. When a fix is simple we sometimes post a patch. When it's not so simple, it would be an extreme waste of our time to try to post instructions for every patch and then have our support department have access to every patch. Further to that, the patches have not yet undergone QA testing, so it's possible they could break other things.

While I'm sure when you are affected by an issue you want it fixed as soon as possible, we have to stick to some sort of organization that will benefit all of our customers in the most efficient manner. Fixing reported issues and then releasing an update to address those issues is pretty much the norm in this industry.

Why not? What if I did a search for a topic on this site and found a post that clearly and accurately addresses an issue, but it was posted 6 months ago? It may be the first time I've seen the post, and the author truly deserves reputation points for the post, but based on some arbitrary date cut-off they won't get the points?

I didn't find another place to post ,yet i find it sad that all it takes is about a minute to direct me towards the source file, if anyone has it they can upload it.

In any case if anyone has this particular source , i would be grateful for the files.

Regards

also .. whats up with people , giving -Rep on every post? ? i got like -5 on this post for asking a simple question .. thats great community support.

Charles Thanks a bunch! , thats all i needed , it only cost a few -Reps , but i can live with that.

Thanks again , i really appreciate it.

There are some trolls on the board. Your first post I could understand someone giving you a negative rep because you seem impatient in it. But after that, it's just ridiculous. (Now watch, I'll get negative rep for what I just now said.)

I gave you a few + reps to help you out some (except the first post). Someone else is giving you + points too but I don't know who.

I have read that some of the issues I have on my 3.0.2 board will be fixed in 3.0.3
Any hint as to when 3.0.3 will be released?
Or is there a way to have the individual issues fixed?

IPB Staff, i have had my ticket open for 20 hours.. and not a single reply , all i want is 2.3.X Converters with instructions...i need them asap , but been waiting for 20 hours..

Any quick response is greatly appreciated .
Thank you guys.

Oh that's irrelevant. We should be able to add any feature someone dreams up and it should run on that Pentium 2 shared server user xyz is using that has 1 GB of RAM and 5 GB hard drive space, with 50 accounts on the box.

/end sarcasm

People don't consider these sorts of things you know. ;)