Oh, wow! Its farther along than I thought; that's awesome, Dan! Great idea with the IRC applet, too! Man, I can't wait
Although I was kinda hoping for the Hello Kitty skin...
Computer Science Canada V3 PreAlpha Preview |
| Author: | Dan [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | V3 PreAlpha Preview |
Tada! http://www.compsci.ca/wiki/index.php?title=V3#V3_Pre-Alpha_Preview Some pics of what it could look like......... Martin says: I edited the wiki page, so fixed the link. |
|
| Author: | Hikaru79 [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 6:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Oh, wow! Its farther along than I thought; that's awesome, Dan! Great idea with the IRC applet, too! Man, I can't wait
Although I was kinda hoping for the Hello Kitty skin... |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 7:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Nice! And ... rediculous resolution. |
|
| Author: | Mazer [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 8:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Looking decent... Dan, are you busy or should I PM you now regarding shipping details for your monitor? |
|
| Author: | md [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Looks nice! But what's with the resolution? It's so low! |
|
| Author: | Andy [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I dont see anything wrong with the resolution of the screen. It's on 1680x1050, standard for most high-end laptops |
|
| Author: | Mazer [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Andy wrote: I dont see anything wrong with the resolution of the screen. It's on 1680x1050, standard for most high-end laptops
Andy, are you busy or should I PM you now regarding shipping details for your low end laptops? |
|
| Author: | Andy [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Sorry, but I'm a bit too busy  |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Andy wrote: I dont see anything wrong with the resolution of the screen. It's on 1680x1050, standard for most high-end laptops
Guse what i am using =p. Thes where just some fast screen shoots i toke at like 3am, i did not feal like chaging the rez around or pics around since it whould wast v3 making time. |
|
| Author: | octopi [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Whoa, you guys really use such high resolutions? My laptop can go pretty high, but I've never found a reason to do it. I just keep it at 1024x768 |
|
| Author: | Amailer [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
XD High-res- who cares. V3 WOoo, its finally coming. |
|
| Author: | Andy [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
well the thing with lcd screens is that you should always put it on its natural resolution, or it'll look ugly. |
|
| Author: | [Gandalf] [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 4:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Looking good! Only... I'm hoping that all those menu options above "Board Index" will fit on my screen.  |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 7:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
My iMac is I believe 1440x900, and I thought that was big.... |
|
| Author: | Cervantes [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 8:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Looking good, Dan! About this Alpha testing that I signed up for, is it going to be using the same database as v2? In other words, will we be actually using v3 to use the site and its new posts, or just clicking around in v3 with only posts that alpha testers make, trying to break things? |
|
| Author: | chrispminis [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 9:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yeah, how is that low resolution? I realize my current 1024x 768 may not be incredibly high end but am I that far behind? Thats ridiculously large, I could set my screen to that, but then Id have to scroll around my screen  |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
[Gandalf] wrote: Looking good!
Only... I'm hoping that all those menu options above "Board Index" will fit on my screen. I have tested it on lower rezes a bit and in theroy they should get knocked down like the ones on v2 look for lower rezs. But i am not shure exctaly how all parts will look, that is why we have testing (alpha, beata, ect). To Cervantes: for the test it will have it's own data base. Since this could break big time and delete everything. Once the testing is over i will convert the v2 database to the v3 one so the posts and users will still be there. |
|
| Author: | Blade [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hacker Dan wrote: V3 ETA
Alpha Version: Before Summer, Feb. 30th (estimate only) Beta Version: Before next school year, April 30th (estimate only) Public Version: Unknown well if its coming out on feb 30th it'll never happen   |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
shhhhh you, this way i can allways say that the 30th of feb has not happend yet. |
|
| Author: | md [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
chrispminis wrote: Yeah, how is that low resolution? I realize my current 1024x 768 may not be incredibly high end but am I that far behind? Thats ridiculously large, I could set my screen to that, but then Id have to scroll around my screen
I don't use anything less then 1280x1024 these days. on a 19" monitor if you can't see things perfectly at that level then there are other problems. And if you don't have an 19" CRT at least... wel... they are going for absurdly cheap these days... |
|
| Author: | rizzix [ Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
If the res is 1280x1024 then make sure the site displays well in a 1024x768 window. On a mac we don't view applications in full screen, unlike windows or linux. We like to see our desktop while browsing or at least part of it. The darg-n-drop feature of the mac is something one just can't live without. Now as for the res, well support the lowest common res, i.e the 1024x768 monitors. That means the site should display well in a 800x600 window. Thanks. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
crazy peoleops: http://www.compsci.ca/wiki/index.php?title=Image:V3smallrez.JPG That is at one of the lowest setings my laptop will go. It dose not look the best on 800x600 but it is still functainal the above pic is at 1024x768. Note the double wifi card ;) |
|
| Author: | octopi [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
how many wireless connections do you need on your laptop? from that screen grab looks like you got 2, why so many? |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
One is the exteranl bulit in wifi appator the other is an card that has an port to hoke up to an exteranl anatin. Also one is a,b and the other is a,b,g. It is also good to have muptial cards if u whont to have muptial wifi conections at the same time. War driving is fun ;) |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 9:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The typical browser window is still 800X600. At home, I multitask a lot, and rarely use the whole screen res to browse. At work, we have (piece o' crap) 15" monitors. |
|
| Author: | timmytheturtle [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 3:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
V3's looking good. |
|
| Author: | rizzix [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 7:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
rizzix wrote: Now as for the res, well support the lowest common res, i.e the 1024x768 monitors. That means the site should display well in a 800x600 window. Thanks. codemage wrote: The typical browser window is still 800X600. This is important Dan. |
|
| Author: | Mazer [ Wed Feb 22, 2006 8:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
rizzix wrote: rizzix wrote: Now as for the res, well support the lowest common res, i.e the 1024x768 monitors. That means the site should display well in a 800x600 window. Thanks. codemage wrote: The typical browser window is still 800X600. This is important Dan. Really? If you really want to go that far (and I think it's a good idea to), would it be better to consider a 800x600 desktop with a maximised browser window will still have the vertical scrollbar cutting into things? Then you only get ~780 pixels width to be nice. |
|
| Author: | md [ Thu Feb 23, 2006 2:57 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
if people are still using 800x600 as their standard then there are problems. 1024x768 is a much more reasonable standard, and one that everyone nowadays should be able to use. Even if the window isn't maximized. I mean come on people, get with the times. Modern (aka last 10 years) monitors are big enough to run high resolutions without needing a magnifying glass to see things. |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Reasonable or not, that's what the standard is. Highspeed is reasonable too, but most internet users are still on dial-up. The vast majority of educational and corporate institutions don't have any desire to cut into their bottom line in order to make spreadsheets and word documents more crisp for their users.  |
|
| Author: | md [ Thu Feb 23, 2006 5:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
codemage wrote: Reasonable or not, that's what the standard is. Highspeed is reasonable too, but most internet users are still on dial-up.
The vast majority of educational and corporate institutions don't have any desire to cut into their bottom line in order to make spreadsheets and word documents more crisp for their users. Actually.... last I heard broadband made up teh majority of internet connections in Canada. At > 60%. As for businesses it's not about making the spead sheet bigger; it's about ergonomics and helping people not go blind because they had to focus on a small monitor all day for X years. Never mind teh fact that being able to see more of a spread sheet would improve performance. Or that replacing all CRTs with LCDs would result in significant power savings. Small monitors are bad for the bottom line. |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Canada; SW Ontario in particular, is one of the best-connected regions in the world. (And we're lucky to have that privilege). Really great workplaces care about ergonomics, but a lot don't believe that the cost is justified. I've taught a bit on office ergonomics, often using the lab I'm teaching in (at various institutions) as examples of the poor to very poor kind. Right now I'm typing on a keyboard that is at the wrong height (on top of a desk at chest level) because the cheap, back-destroying plastic rolly chairs don't go high enough, I have no wrist support, the $2 mouse is too small for my hand (and the cord is too short), the 19" monitor is emitting a loud highpitched ringing, and... its resolution is locked at a low resolution so older people can read clearly without having to adjust settings. This is ergonomics in my world. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
UPDATE: V3 Syntax Preview http://www.compsci.ca/wiki/index.php?title=V3#V3_Alpha_Preview V3 will suport many langs for the syntax bbcode. Unfronyl for me, alot of thos langs do not have a permade syntax highlighter so i most make my own confis for them. So far we have all the defualts and i just added turing (suports 4.x and 4.0.5 where 4.0.5 comands get there own color) and ruby tho ruby is a hard lang to highlight. |
|
| Author: | person [ Sun Mar 12, 2006 2:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I like how you have -1328 number of bits. |
|