1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  10  |   Order by default

Apr 15, 2003, 6:44pm

Posting it 3 times won't count 3 times though <g>



[View Quote]

Apr 15, 2003, 6:48pm

I am generally fine with the movement, but 2 issues are not:

a) too fast acceleration, make it impossible to navigate precisely (eg.
landing on pole, sidestep of a few cm only: The smallest possible move
(average of multiple tries) is about 70cm now, when it was 20cm before.

b) CTRL+rotation is way too fast, takes me under 1 second to take a full
360° turn (4 seconds with 3.3) - which makes it impossible to run and
make little direction adjustments (even the lightest tip on the rotation
key rotates me already up to 60 degrees)


[View Quote]

Apr 16, 2003, 7:38pm

1) does not work when NUMlock is on, which is a default for many (most I
know) computer users

2) does not work because when the slightest tip (= key reaction) already
drives me a big distance, pressing "5" (which would, technically, come
into effect after the first key press has been registered) would stop
the movement too late as well. With "5" you only can eliminate the
effect of the skid (or the normal moving phase), but not the one of
acceleration.

3) why would I want to use a combination of keys, when, as a basic
function, pressing 1 key alone has been sufficent?



[View Quote]

Apr 16, 2003, 10:43pm

419 here :)


[View Quote]

Apr 15, 2003, 9:11pm

It has nothing to with undesirability to have a vital function of the
program working in a way to keep (and not to disable) things working.
The minimum possible movement is too big for detail work and for exact
positioning.

And no matter how many attempts have been made, it still does not work
as expected. If you buy a new TV and it only show 2 programs instead of
the previous 50, and after several attempts to fix it, it still does not
show more than 10 programs, you - and anybody else - will certainly not
be satisfied, but demand it to work as expected.

Nothing else is wanted her, just to have the basic functionality kept in
place and working considerably well.




[View Quote]

Apr 16, 2003, 7:41pm

In this regard, the behaviour is not a bug, but an intended behaviour
following standards.
<<<

and later...

The new transmitted referrer does not satisfy those conditions, not to
speak about the non-standard protocol type "aw://"
<<<

You sound quite like a politican. :-)




[View Quote]

Apr 16, 2003, 10:46pm

I do not want to stop, but to move in a small step. Like I said, when
the stop key comes into effect, the movement has been performed to the
smallest possible step (which is 3-7 times bigger than before) already.
:-)

And no - it is the acceleration, not the deceleration that is causing
the problem.


[View Quote]

Jul 8, 2003, 1:33am

Actually, when you have identified such URLs, the best way is to delete
them from a propdump and then reload the cleaned propdump to the world.



[View Quote]

Jun 25, 2003, 5:44am

This is on my list of requests for the next version . :-)


[View Quote]

Jun 18, 2003, 8:19am

Gives a cool first impression when you visit it without Flash:

The requested URL /noflash.html was not found on this server. You may
want to try http://secondlife.com instead.

And this url then gives the same error <lol>.





[View Quote]

Jun 29, 2003, 1:26pm

Die habe ich schon oft als Aufkleber für Citroen2CV-Enten gesehen, schau
mal z.B. bei Karstadt in der Auto-Aufkleberabteilung nach. :-)



[View Quote]

Jul 14, 2003, 10:44am

> The server is slow for several months now.

It appears to me rather that the server thread sometimes is stuck or
needs a lot of time to reverse dns, since after the initial waiting
period, it responds quite fast then.

4 7 ms 8 ms 10 ms hsa1.dus1.gig9-0.118.eu.level3.net
[62.67.36.77]
5 10 ms 9 ms 9 ms ae0-20.mp2.Dusseldorf1.Level3.net
[195.122.168.2
02]
6 21 ms 19 ms 18 ms so-0-0-0.mp2.London1.Level3.net
[212.187.128.25]
7 84 ms 85 ms 84 ms so-1-0-0.bbr2.NewYork1.level3.net
[212.187.128.1
53]
8 90 ms 91 ms 91 ms so-0-1-0.mp2.Boston1.Level3.net
[209.247.9.126]
9 91 ms 90 ms 91 ms gige11-0.hsa1.Boston1.Level3.net
[64.159.3.142]
10 90 ms 91 ms 96 ms unknown.Level3.net [63.211.175.26]
11 91 ms 91 ms 91 ms border7.ge1-1-bbnet1.bsn.pnap.net
[63.251.128.12
]
12 91 ms 90 ms 92 ms border14.ge4-1.bos.bsn-1.bos.pnap.net
[216.52.63
..225]
13 91 ms 90 ms 90 ms border1.fe6-0-fenet2.bos.pnap.net
[216.52.63.68]
14 92 ms 92 ms 90 ms news.activeworlds.com [64.94.241.201]

------------

4 7 ms 9 ms 9 ms hsa1.dus1.gig9-0.118.eu.level3.net
[62.67.36.77]
5 8 ms 8 ms 9 ms ae0-15.mp1.Dusseldorf1.Level3.net
[195.122.168.1
61]
6 11 ms 12 ms 12 ms so-2-0-0.mp2.Frankfurt1.Level3.net
[212.187.128.
97]
7 12 ms 13 ms 13 ms gige6-1.core2.Frankfurt1.Level3.net
[195.122.136
..86]
8 13 ms 13 ms 12 ms Telia-Level3.level3.net
[195.122.136.250]
9 13 ms 12 ms 12 ms ffm-b1-pos3-0.telia.net [213.248.68.169]
10 41 ms 42 ms 41 ms pantel-01946-ffm-b1.c.telia.net
[213.248.79.134]
11 40 ms 39 ms 39 ms ge0-1-0-20.bud1corej1.pantel.net
[212.24.164.146
]
12 40 ms 42 ms 42 ms banknet-gw.pantel.net [212.24.161.186]
13 47 ms 47 ms 47 ms 193.131.103.134
14 54 ms 52 ms 52 ms storage-gw.banknet.net [193.131.103.21]




[View Quote]

Jul 16, 2003, 3:00pm

yup, no change to before





[View Quote]

Jul 16, 2003, 1:00pm

Umm - what exactly is the difference between the normal and the special
avatar in your example? :-)


[View Quote]

Jul 16, 2003, 1:05pm

I see - the only difference is that it is not called "avatar", but
"special".



[View Quote]

Jul 16, 2003, 3:05pm

Now you confuse me - why would I put a special avatar into the
avatar.dat so that anybody can use them? To do that, I do not need to
name them "special" avatars, but can include them as regular avatars.

My understanding was that when you put them into avatar.dat as "special"
rather than "avatar" that they still stay special avatars as they used
to in all regards, but have an entry in the avatars.dat file then and
can use more than 1 gesture - else it wouldn't make any sense for me
<g>.



[View Quote]

Aug 8, 2003, 6:49am

Absolutely agreed, especially, because of the action taken the word now
spreaded all over the newsgroups.



[View Quote]

Aug 8, 2003, 9:13am

I duplicated the bug yesterday with the regular v494.



[View Quote]

Aug 7, 2003, 8:30pm

I suggest to put "View Homepage" between "Send telegram" and "Send
File", so in case of a mis-select when trying to select sending a
telegram, the other person gets no popup of a file transfer, but the
mis-clicker opens the homepage and only see himself that he mis-selected
<g>.

Happened to me a couple of times now already.

Aug 8, 2003, 3:30pm

Actually, I wonder how it went in here at all, it was intended to go
into another newsgroup (and I saw it showing up there on my computer
even).

Sorry!


[View Quote]

Aug 28, 2003, 10:48am

Stick with W98SE (must be "se" though). Faster, more stabile, easier to
use. :-)


[View Quote]

Aug 29, 2003, 4:27am

Not when your system is optimized - xp can be fast also, but then you
would have (at least) disabled everything that differentiates xp from 98
<eg>. :-)



[View Quote]

Aug 29, 2003, 4:56pm

I won't need statistics when I use both systems and can judge by own
experience <g>. In none of my typical working environments and tasks has
xp been either more stabile or faster.

However, I prefer barebone systems where all uneeded MS junk has been
stripped, disabled, thrown out, etc. as much as possible (my bare
windows system partition needs around 500MB, try that with xp) - maybe
it is just all those unneeded things, which I never experienced, that
are more stabile on xp <g> - or maybe removing all the junk alone made
w98se a very stabile and reliable system <eg>. :-)





[View Quote]

Aug 30, 2003, 7:13am

hardly worth the effort to minimize the xp folder
<<<

It is not a matter of minimizing, but a matter of removing unneeded,
security or privacy compromising parts and/or replacing it with more
efficient and/or secure non-ms versions. If you do that, the
installation minimizes itself already. :-)



[View Quote]

Aug 30, 2003, 5:50pm

512 MB RAM maximum (more are not supported by W98 anyway), but I also
run a gateway machine with 40 MB - and the windows partition is between
500MB-1000MB (on this partition I usually also put some system
utilities, eg. zip/rar/ace, ntp, cleanups, etc.), depending on what the
machine is used for. :)


[View Quote]

Aug 30, 2003, 5:57pm

It certainly will not due to fragmentation, there is only a slight
advantage when you put the swap partition on the outer area of the HD -
however, when you have more than 1 HD on the computer, performance is
even higher when it is located in the outer area of the second one.

This is all becomes relative though due to the amount of main memory you
use as a ram disk (and what you put there), and as a file and network
cache, whether or not you keep dll files or unload them after useage and
other optimizing methods.

All this is an academical question anyway, since any improvement is only
noticeable when the general hardware is highly optimized already.



[View Quote]

Aug 30, 2003, 6:02pm

Yes, I agree - however, MS programs have the annoying habit to
self-restart or have their ini files changed even by updates that nobody
would think affects these programs. So the easiest way to really get rid
of them is to weed them out manually (not only in the registry <g>), it
is then also entertaining to see every now and then an error message of
some totally unrelated program being unable to start or perform <eg>.
:-)

It also helps to put some things on a ram disk (history, temp, cookies,
browser cache, recent folder, etc.) - makes it much easier to keep the
computer unpolluted. :-)




> thats just a question of disabling the services in XP, first thing to do
> after installation is to switch off 3/4 of the services auto started.
> Doesn't do jacksh*t for the installation size but is a hell of a lot
> easier and quicker then weeding out modules from the registry

[View Quote]

Aug 31, 2003, 1:33pm

Of course <g>, page file goes to an extra drive, programs and data are
always sorted to one of the other partitions. :-)




[View Quote]

Aug 31, 2003, 1:46pm

I shut down all my machines (k6, p2, p3, p3, xp2000, p4) always by using
a power switch - takes ca. 0.1 seconds <g>.
On each power switch, all periphery belonging to this computer is
plugged in, and each power switch has a direct (integrated) or indirect
(external) surge protection - the mainboards are set to power
recovery:state-before, so switching the switch on will regularly reboot
the machines. Apart from the highly secure off state (physical
interruption of the power line), it also saves a good deal of energy
preventing any device from secret sucking when sleeping or hibernating.
:-)



[View Quote]

Aug 31, 2003, 1:50pm

I had it happening quite often that "security" and other "updates" of MS
programs changed windows settings, not only for this program, but also
for system settings and those of other programs. Especially the MSIE and
WMP like to crawl through the system and unfortunately, since the MSIE
settings and underlying files are also used by some other programs, it
has to be constantly updated even though I never use MSIE itself. It is
quite annyoing to always have to check manually which ones of the
settings have been changed this time.





[View Quote]

1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  10  |   Order by default