Number of threads per page

LAST EDITED ON Jan-26-04 AT 08:19 AM (CDT) by LNeumann (admin)
 
I was wondering why I was having my old problem of laoding the forum pages and I note that we have creapt back to 60 threads per page. Back when it was 80 I had lots of problems. Len reduced that to 60 and things got a little better. After the last outage they went back to 80 and things got worse. I emailed Bob and he cut it to 50, which made things much better. Now we're back to 60 and I have problems.
Anybody else find this a problem?

(Sorry about the edit, it was unintentional--forumhost)

I was trying to juggle two different needs--one, the problem of speed of loading, and the other the desire to keep most or all of the current posts on the first page. I think a lot of people don't even know there is a second page, and if you only come here once a day (or less often) you will find that the new messages to threads are into the second page--or even the third. That was why I moved it back to 60.

Now I have a fairly quick machine, but am still saddled with dial up access which is really the bottle neck and I don't find it a problem for viewing, so I am wondering what problems you are experiencing.

I do have my viewing choice set at expanded threads (left corner of the top dark blue bar--if it shows +, click on it so it shows - ) which I prefer but which does slow down loading. Still, I don't find it a problem.

I also have my preferences set to use the mark icon ( go to user_menu athe the top and click on "preferences" at the left ) and then click the mark icon before I leave which resets the new posts, but that should not make any difference. But that way when I enter the forum I only scan down as far as the new posts, and then read from the bottommost new post up. (Any newer posts that are added after I enter the forum are always posted at the top anyway).

Len,
I know my problems are mainly due to the system I'm running, but I can't afford to upgrade. I asked the question to see if this was a problem for others. It appears that it isn't, so I'm the minority.

My home link is a dialup and is really only workable at 28.8K. It seems to work OK with SSWF. I can live with it, although work has a T2 line and it's just fun by comparison. My computers are not exotic (800 MHz and 1 GHz P4's), but I'm not compute bound on it.

I really do believe that Mozilla is faster and sleeker than Netscape, although I've heard the IE works pretty well (I don't use IE unless it is required, however). Apparently other browsers (Opera?) are even sleeker.

Good luck.

[photo not recovered: 3e69bb3870f12ad5.jpg]

"If you ever reach total enlightenment while you're drinking a beer, I bet it makes beer shoot out your nose." -Jack Handy

I am stuck with dial up (currently registering 52K) and using a Pentium 4 with Win XP and the latest version of IE for comparison sake. I find things run fairly well for me at these settings. (Now if I could only get my ISP to fix their e-mail client)