Sounds like we ran in some of the same circles. I was a Netware admin
in the early '90s, and OS/2 made a great admin platform for Netware
servers - lots of console windows without drivers in low memory. DOS
VDMs for apps that needed a native DOS environment.
Switched to NT4 when the internet came around, and I had a couple of databases to manage. Really enjoyed the eye-candy of Litestep, ran
it on the BBS for some time, and ran it on old Dell boxes running
Windows 2000 that needed all the RAM they could muster.
I couldn't stand the Windows 8 start menu, used classic shell to
emulate a XP environment, down to the colors and the wallpaper.
That reminds me, I think it's time for my 2-screen "Dark Bliss"
wallpaper and an XP menu again. :)
Nightfox wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Not only that, but since Windows 8, I think the whole Windows UI has looked fairly flat and monotone since then. It's basically the same
with the other major operating systems too. I don't really like that
some typical UI elements don't look like what they're supposed to be anymore. The worst might be buttons that are just plain flat rectangles
- Sometimes it can be hard to tell if they're buttons or just colored boxes. Another thing that bugs me is, on some Windows 10 setups I've seen, the default color for the active Windows Explorer window border
is white, so it blends in with parts of the screen that have white
(such as other Windows Explorer windows, web browser windows, etc.),
and the Windows Explorer border will be hard (if not impossible) to
see.
Not only that, but since Windows 8, I think the whole Windows UI has
looked fairly flat and monotone since then. It's basically the same
This design trend drives me crazy!! They call it "getting the interface out of your way," or some other such nonsense. It's called lazy development. It's poor design. You cannot get the "interface" out of our way, we NEED something to INTERFACE us with the SYSTEM. That is what it is for. Since we cannot communicate with and control our computers with our thoughts yet (not to the degree necessary to do work in today's world) we need those buttons to look like buttons. We need borders around those borders. We need depth and dinstinction between one application and
example I encountered in web design. I spent 30 minutes one day looking for a field on a form and could not find it. Why? There was no field border of any kind around it. There was just text on the screen and not until you clicked on the non- highlighted text did a faint borde show up revealing it *might* be a field!
Our computer screens are not small phone screens and our phones cannot
do all our computers can as efficiently as our computers can. Ugh.
Re: Re: Bleach Time!
By: MRO to fusion on Sun Mar 07 2021 06:25 pm
yeah it's not yellow because it's aged, it's discolored from something else. i'd like to know what that something else is.
i've had old stuff like that and it didnt yellow. i wonder if this is f smokers.
I've heard some white plastics can turn yellow by being exposed to sunlight
Nightfox
Re: Re: Bleach Time!
By: Nightfox to MRO on Sun Mar 07 2021 09:39 pm
By: Nightfox to MRO on Sun Mar 07 2021 09:39 pm
this is from last march
Re: Re: Bleach Time!
By: MRO to Moondog on Sun Aug 15 2021 09:59 am
By: Nightfox to MRO on Sun Mar 07 2021 09:39 pm
this is from last march
Yep, that's indeed what the date says.
...and?
it's almost 5 and a half months ago. we've moved on from that post.
people shouldnt reply to old shit.
that's your 'and'
Maybe they hadn't seen it yet. Not everyone reads Dove-Net every day.
There are people who might not read Dove-Net for months and then check back.
I'm wondering why it bothers you so much?
it's good msg network etquette to update your msg pointers and not reply to posts that are many months old.
Re: Re: Bleach Time!
By: MRO to Nightfox on Tue Aug 17 2021 09:00:07
it's good msg network etquette to update your msg pointers and not reply to posts that are many months old.
Well that's definitely not true. Reply to messages that are interesting
and relevant, simple as that. God didn't come down from the heavens to
it's good msg network etquette to update your msg pointers and not
reply to posts that are many months old.
Well that's definitely not true. Reply to messages that are interesting and relevant, simple as that. God didn't come down from the heavens to tell people Thou Shalt Not Reply to Messages A Few Months Old. You're
just making up useless etiquette rules where none exist.
update your msg pointers so you dont necro post.
Yep. If someone wants to talk about a particular subject, would it be better to start up a new thread, even though it has been discussed before?
And if you're just looking for information, a forum search is often a good thing to do, as there might be an old thread that can provide some useful information.
Re: Re: Bleach Time!
By: MRO to Ksource on Wed Aug 18 2021 08:56 am
update your msg pointers so you dont necro post.
So, if someone wants to discuss a particular subject, even if it has been discussed before, would it be better for them to start a new thread?
Nightfox
I don't think necroing an old thread is bad as long as there is a reasonable probability that the people originally involved with it is around, though. Maybe it is just me but I don't feel assaulted by necros or anything :-)
Re: Re: Bleach Time!
By: Arelor to Nightfox on Wed Aug 18 2021 03:47 pm
I don't think necroing an old thread is bad as long as there is a reasonable probability that the people originally involved with it is around, though. Maybe it is just me but I don't feel assaulted by necros or anything :-)
i think it really shows a flaw in the synchronet interface.
when a new user gets past the application i think it should ask them if they'd like to update their msg pointers.
almost ALL the time, when a new user replies to old msgs they are doing it by accident. these msgs are new to them, but not new and they dont realize it until later.
i've done it myself.
Re: Re: Bleach Time!
By: Arelor to Nightfox on Wed Aug 18 2021 03:47 pm
I don't think necroing an old thread is bad as long as there is a reasona probability that the people originally involved with it is around, though Maybe it is just me but I don't feel assaulted by necros or anything :-)
i think it really shows a flaw in the synchronet interface.
when a new user gets past the application i think it should ask them if they like to update their msg pointers.
almost ALL the time, when a new user replies to old msgs they are doing it b accident. these msgs are new to them, but not new and they dont realize it until later.
i've done it myself.
Each sysop has the option to set new users' message pointers however they li via SCFG->System->New User Values->Days of New Messages. I think the default value is 30 (days).
i think it really shows a flaw in the synchronet interface.
when a new user gets past the application i think it should ask them if they'd like to update their msg pointers.
Each sysop has the option to set new users' message pointers however they like via SCFG->System->New User Values->Days of New Messages. I think the default value is 30 (days).
almost ALL the time, when a new user replies to old msgs they are doing
Actually, this is somethign I have actually thought myself. Synchronet would benefit if there was an option for having the message pointers automatically set upon the registration of a new user. Right now, a new user that registers ends up having thousands of unread messages to check, onyl a small fraction of which are current enough to be worth checking.
| Sysop: | fluid |
|---|---|
| Location: | wickliffe, ohio |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 204:01:38 |
| Calls: | 50 |
| Files: | 15,838 |
| Messages: | 50,782 |